post_id
stringlengths 5
7
| domain
stringclasses 69
values | upvote_ratio
float64 0.5
1
| history
stringlengths 11
39.7k
| c_root_id_A
stringlengths 7
7
| c_root_id_B
stringlengths 7
7
| created_at_utc_A
int64 1.27B
1.68B
| created_at_utc_B
int64 1.27B
1.68B
| score_A
int64 -644
43.5k
| score_B
int64 -2,846
43.5k
| human_ref_A
stringlengths 0
18k
| human_ref_B
stringlengths 0
13.6k
| labels
int64 0
1
| seconds_difference
float64 0
346M
| score_ratio
float64 -2,292
2.5M
| metadata_A
stringclasses 1
value | metadata_B
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36kzo5 | i380f6u | 1,648,957,247 | 1,648,993,386 | 1 | 6 | One other thing to consider is that you might also be able to transfer into a 1-year b.arch program after your 4-year degree if you decide you don’t want an M.Arch. NC State is set up this way, for example, where you graduate with a 4-year BEDA and then reapply for the 5th year to get your b.arch. Not sure how common that is. If it were me, I’d narrow it down to the two most affordable schools if you like them equally otherwise. | Will you get in-state tuition or a full ride scholarship at any of them? If so, that’s probably the best option. Sadly, the financial side of becoming an architect is just not worth paying the $100/$150k+ that a lot of programs will cost. | 0 | 36,139 | 6 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36pxqy | i380f6u | 1,648,959,987 | 1,648,993,386 | 0 | 6 | 4+2 is better. Having masters opens a lot of doors both in the field or if you want to work outside of it. Where I live most people did B.Arch. I have absolutely been given more opportunity because i am one of the few have a graduate degree. I am technically more educated than firm leadership If you really want to open doors do a 4+3 with a bachelors in another field like business management etc. | Will you get in-state tuition or a full ride scholarship at any of them? If so, that’s probably the best option. Sadly, the financial side of becoming an architect is just not worth paying the $100/$150k+ that a lot of programs will cost. | 0 | 33,399 | 6,000 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36nble | i37z2hp | 1,648,958,510 | 1,648,992,676 | 3 | 4 | I’m finishing a 5yr program right now and I’ve always been told that those look better but who knows, we’ll find out soon | I definitely recommend the 5 year program! I'm a UTSOA alum with a B.Arch and it was well worth the time and money. You'll be in the same courses with Masters candidates once you get to the Advanced level classes anyways. Congrats and good luck! | 0 | 34,166 | 1.333333 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36zttn | i37z2hp | 1,648,966,475 | 1,648,992,676 | 3 | 4 | We pick B.Arch applications over B.S. Arch all the time. The skill gap is huge. | I definitely recommend the 5 year program! I'm a UTSOA alum with a B.Arch and it was well worth the time and money. You'll be in the same courses with Masters candidates once you get to the Advanced level classes anyways. Congrats and good luck! | 0 | 26,201 | 1.333333 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i37191u | i37z2hp | 1,648,967,545 | 1,648,992,676 | 3 | 4 | I did a 4 year at UMN, and M Arch at Rice. If I were to redo it I would just do a B Arch. It will save you a lot of money and also you can move into your career more quickly. I work at a large office now and people with a B Arch and M Arch receive the same pay and are treated as peers out of school. UTA is also a great program | I definitely recommend the 5 year program! I'm a UTSOA alum with a B.Arch and it was well worth the time and money. You'll be in the same courses with Masters candidates once you get to the Advanced level classes anyways. Congrats and good luck! | 0 | 25,131 | 1.333333 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i37t9ug | i37z2hp | 1,648,989,393 | 1,648,992,676 | 3 | 4 | Hello, and congratulations on your acceptance! I did the BS.Arch at UVA and I’m currently back at UVA for the M.Arch. You are correct, UVA is a 4+2 program versus the 5 year “one and done” at other schools. I took two years off (conveniently during the worst of COVID) and worked in architecture following graduation before returning, but that was always my plan. I feel I have returned to school as a graduate a better architect and student as I have the professional experience to reinforce my decisions. Yes it means I am a bit older than my peers who went straight in from undergrad but I don’t regret my decision of school or path in the slightest. I’ve loved my time not only at SARC but UVA as a whole and I’m happy to answer any questions about either. | I definitely recommend the 5 year program! I'm a UTSOA alum with a B.Arch and it was well worth the time and money. You'll be in the same courses with Masters candidates once you get to the Advanced level classes anyways. Congrats and good luck! | 0 | 3,283 | 1.333333 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36kebg | i37z2hp | 1,648,956,924 | 1,648,992,676 | 1 | 4 | I did a 4+2 program and I think the Masters is far more important than either bachelors degree. I definitely learned most professionally applicable things in grad school as well. | I definitely recommend the 5 year program! I'm a UTSOA alum with a B.Arch and it was well worth the time and money. You'll be in the same courses with Masters candidates once you get to the Advanced level classes anyways. Congrats and good luck! | 0 | 35,752 | 4 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36kzo5 | i37z2hp | 1,648,957,247 | 1,648,992,676 | 1 | 4 | One other thing to consider is that you might also be able to transfer into a 1-year b.arch program after your 4-year degree if you decide you don’t want an M.Arch. NC State is set up this way, for example, where you graduate with a 4-year BEDA and then reapply for the 5th year to get your b.arch. Not sure how common that is. If it were me, I’d narrow it down to the two most affordable schools if you like them equally otherwise. | I definitely recommend the 5 year program! I'm a UTSOA alum with a B.Arch and it was well worth the time and money. You'll be in the same courses with Masters candidates once you get to the Advanced level classes anyways. Congrats and good luck! | 0 | 35,429 | 4 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36pxqy | i37z2hp | 1,648,959,987 | 1,648,992,676 | 0 | 4 | 4+2 is better. Having masters opens a lot of doors both in the field or if you want to work outside of it. Where I live most people did B.Arch. I have absolutely been given more opportunity because i am one of the few have a graduate degree. I am technically more educated than firm leadership If you really want to open doors do a 4+3 with a bachelors in another field like business management etc. | I definitely recommend the 5 year program! I'm a UTSOA alum with a B.Arch and it was well worth the time and money. You'll be in the same courses with Masters candidates once you get to the Advanced level classes anyways. Congrats and good luck! | 0 | 32,689 | 4,000 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36nble | i36kebg | 1,648,958,510 | 1,648,956,924 | 3 | 1 | I’m finishing a 5yr program right now and I’ve always been told that those look better but who knows, we’ll find out soon | I did a 4+2 program and I think the Masters is far more important than either bachelors degree. I definitely learned most professionally applicable things in grad school as well. | 1 | 1,586 | 3 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36nble | i36kzo5 | 1,648,958,510 | 1,648,957,247 | 3 | 1 | I’m finishing a 5yr program right now and I’ve always been told that those look better but who knows, we’ll find out soon | One other thing to consider is that you might also be able to transfer into a 1-year b.arch program after your 4-year degree if you decide you don’t want an M.Arch. NC State is set up this way, for example, where you graduate with a 4-year BEDA and then reapply for the 5th year to get your b.arch. Not sure how common that is. If it were me, I’d narrow it down to the two most affordable schools if you like them equally otherwise. | 1 | 1,263 | 3 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36kebg | i36zttn | 1,648,956,924 | 1,648,966,475 | 1 | 3 | I did a 4+2 program and I think the Masters is far more important than either bachelors degree. I definitely learned most professionally applicable things in grad school as well. | We pick B.Arch applications over B.S. Arch all the time. The skill gap is huge. | 0 | 9,551 | 3 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36kzo5 | i36zttn | 1,648,957,247 | 1,648,966,475 | 1 | 3 | One other thing to consider is that you might also be able to transfer into a 1-year b.arch program after your 4-year degree if you decide you don’t want an M.Arch. NC State is set up this way, for example, where you graduate with a 4-year BEDA and then reapply for the 5th year to get your b.arch. Not sure how common that is. If it were me, I’d narrow it down to the two most affordable schools if you like them equally otherwise. | We pick B.Arch applications over B.S. Arch all the time. The skill gap is huge. | 0 | 9,228 | 3 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36zttn | i36pxqy | 1,648,966,475 | 1,648,959,987 | 3 | 0 | We pick B.Arch applications over B.S. Arch all the time. The skill gap is huge. | 4+2 is better. Having masters opens a lot of doors both in the field or if you want to work outside of it. Where I live most people did B.Arch. I have absolutely been given more opportunity because i am one of the few have a graduate degree. I am technically more educated than firm leadership If you really want to open doors do a 4+3 with a bachelors in another field like business management etc. | 1 | 6,488 | 3,000 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i37191u | i36kebg | 1,648,967,545 | 1,648,956,924 | 3 | 1 | I did a 4 year at UMN, and M Arch at Rice. If I were to redo it I would just do a B Arch. It will save you a lot of money and also you can move into your career more quickly. I work at a large office now and people with a B Arch and M Arch receive the same pay and are treated as peers out of school. UTA is also a great program | I did a 4+2 program and I think the Masters is far more important than either bachelors degree. I definitely learned most professionally applicable things in grad school as well. | 1 | 10,621 | 3 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36kzo5 | i37191u | 1,648,957,247 | 1,648,967,545 | 1 | 3 | One other thing to consider is that you might also be able to transfer into a 1-year b.arch program after your 4-year degree if you decide you don’t want an M.Arch. NC State is set up this way, for example, where you graduate with a 4-year BEDA and then reapply for the 5th year to get your b.arch. Not sure how common that is. If it were me, I’d narrow it down to the two most affordable schools if you like them equally otherwise. | I did a 4 year at UMN, and M Arch at Rice. If I were to redo it I would just do a B Arch. It will save you a lot of money and also you can move into your career more quickly. I work at a large office now and people with a B Arch and M Arch receive the same pay and are treated as peers out of school. UTA is also a great program | 0 | 10,298 | 3 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i37191u | i36pxqy | 1,648,967,545 | 1,648,959,987 | 3 | 0 | I did a 4 year at UMN, and M Arch at Rice. If I were to redo it I would just do a B Arch. It will save you a lot of money and also you can move into your career more quickly. I work at a large office now and people with a B Arch and M Arch receive the same pay and are treated as peers out of school. UTA is also a great program | 4+2 is better. Having masters opens a lot of doors both in the field or if you want to work outside of it. Where I live most people did B.Arch. I have absolutely been given more opportunity because i am one of the few have a graduate degree. I am technically more educated than firm leadership If you really want to open doors do a 4+3 with a bachelors in another field like business management etc. | 1 | 7,558 | 3,000 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36kebg | i37t9ug | 1,648,956,924 | 1,648,989,393 | 1 | 3 | I did a 4+2 program and I think the Masters is far more important than either bachelors degree. I definitely learned most professionally applicable things in grad school as well. | Hello, and congratulations on your acceptance! I did the BS.Arch at UVA and I’m currently back at UVA for the M.Arch. You are correct, UVA is a 4+2 program versus the 5 year “one and done” at other schools. I took two years off (conveniently during the worst of COVID) and worked in architecture following graduation before returning, but that was always my plan. I feel I have returned to school as a graduate a better architect and student as I have the professional experience to reinforce my decisions. Yes it means I am a bit older than my peers who went straight in from undergrad but I don’t regret my decision of school or path in the slightest. I’ve loved my time not only at SARC but UVA as a whole and I’m happy to answer any questions about either. | 0 | 32,469 | 3 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i37t9ug | i36kzo5 | 1,648,989,393 | 1,648,957,247 | 3 | 1 | Hello, and congratulations on your acceptance! I did the BS.Arch at UVA and I’m currently back at UVA for the M.Arch. You are correct, UVA is a 4+2 program versus the 5 year “one and done” at other schools. I took two years off (conveniently during the worst of COVID) and worked in architecture following graduation before returning, but that was always my plan. I feel I have returned to school as a graduate a better architect and student as I have the professional experience to reinforce my decisions. Yes it means I am a bit older than my peers who went straight in from undergrad but I don’t regret my decision of school or path in the slightest. I’ve loved my time not only at SARC but UVA as a whole and I’m happy to answer any questions about either. | One other thing to consider is that you might also be able to transfer into a 1-year b.arch program after your 4-year degree if you decide you don’t want an M.Arch. NC State is set up this way, for example, where you graduate with a 4-year BEDA and then reapply for the 5th year to get your b.arch. Not sure how common that is. If it were me, I’d narrow it down to the two most affordable schools if you like them equally otherwise. | 1 | 32,146 | 3 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i37t9ug | i36pxqy | 1,648,989,393 | 1,648,959,987 | 3 | 0 | Hello, and congratulations on your acceptance! I did the BS.Arch at UVA and I’m currently back at UVA for the M.Arch. You are correct, UVA is a 4+2 program versus the 5 year “one and done” at other schools. I took two years off (conveniently during the worst of COVID) and worked in architecture following graduation before returning, but that was always my plan. I feel I have returned to school as a graduate a better architect and student as I have the professional experience to reinforce my decisions. Yes it means I am a bit older than my peers who went straight in from undergrad but I don’t regret my decision of school or path in the slightest. I’ve loved my time not only at SARC but UVA as a whole and I’m happy to answer any questions about either. | 4+2 is better. Having masters opens a lot of doors both in the field or if you want to work outside of it. Where I live most people did B.Arch. I have absolutely been given more opportunity because i am one of the few have a graduate degree. I am technically more educated than firm leadership If you really want to open doors do a 4+3 with a bachelors in another field like business management etc. | 1 | 29,406 | 3,000 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i38beh6 | i36kebg | 1,648,998,552 | 1,648,956,924 | 3 | 1 | I did a 3 year M.Arch after a BA in something else entirely and love the path I took so don’t let folks discourage you from going for a masters. It is not a waste of time as some have suggested. Thing is, what if you change majors? Don’t be in such a rush, enjoy this time in your life. I would choose the school that you feel is a good fit more than I would chose it based on whether you can rush on through in 5 years and be done. That being said, financial aid packages should weigh heavily in your decision also. If UT gave me a free ride but I had to shell out to go to UVA, I would go UT even if I wanted that 4+2. You have some real good options and can’t go wrong with any of them, don’t stress! | I did a 4+2 program and I think the Masters is far more important than either bachelors degree. I definitely learned most professionally applicable things in grad school as well. | 1 | 41,628 | 3 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i38beh6 | i36kzo5 | 1,648,998,552 | 1,648,957,247 | 3 | 1 | I did a 3 year M.Arch after a BA in something else entirely and love the path I took so don’t let folks discourage you from going for a masters. It is not a waste of time as some have suggested. Thing is, what if you change majors? Don’t be in such a rush, enjoy this time in your life. I would choose the school that you feel is a good fit more than I would chose it based on whether you can rush on through in 5 years and be done. That being said, financial aid packages should weigh heavily in your decision also. If UT gave me a free ride but I had to shell out to go to UVA, I would go UT even if I wanted that 4+2. You have some real good options and can’t go wrong with any of them, don’t stress! | One other thing to consider is that you might also be able to transfer into a 1-year b.arch program after your 4-year degree if you decide you don’t want an M.Arch. NC State is set up this way, for example, where you graduate with a 4-year BEDA and then reapply for the 5th year to get your b.arch. Not sure how common that is. If it were me, I’d narrow it down to the two most affordable schools if you like them equally otherwise. | 1 | 41,305 | 3 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36pxqy | i38beh6 | 1,648,959,987 | 1,648,998,552 | 0 | 3 | 4+2 is better. Having masters opens a lot of doors both in the field or if you want to work outside of it. Where I live most people did B.Arch. I have absolutely been given more opportunity because i am one of the few have a graduate degree. I am technically more educated than firm leadership If you really want to open doors do a 4+3 with a bachelors in another field like business management etc. | I did a 3 year M.Arch after a BA in something else entirely and love the path I took so don’t let folks discourage you from going for a masters. It is not a waste of time as some have suggested. Thing is, what if you change majors? Don’t be in such a rush, enjoy this time in your life. I would choose the school that you feel is a good fit more than I would chose it based on whether you can rush on through in 5 years and be done. That being said, financial aid packages should weigh heavily in your decision also. If UT gave me a free ride but I had to shell out to go to UVA, I would go UT even if I wanted that 4+2. You have some real good options and can’t go wrong with any of them, don’t stress! | 0 | 38,565 | 3,000 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36kebg | i38bjuw | 1,648,956,924 | 1,648,998,619 | 1 | 2 | I did a 4+2 program and I think the Masters is far more important than either bachelors degree. I definitely learned most professionally applicable things in grad school as well. | It’s all about licensing and how much time you want to spend in school. Ultimately you need to take your exams. Your NCARB record is the most important piece of the puzzle, IMHO. I recommend you visit the NCARB site and determine how you want to proceed. 4, 5 years of school, or more? You choose. But make sure you are able to take the exams and get your NCARB file complete. | 0 | 41,695 | 2 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i36kzo5 | i38bjuw | 1,648,957,247 | 1,648,998,619 | 1 | 2 | One other thing to consider is that you might also be able to transfer into a 1-year b.arch program after your 4-year degree if you decide you don’t want an M.Arch. NC State is set up this way, for example, where you graduate with a 4-year BEDA and then reapply for the 5th year to get your b.arch. Not sure how common that is. If it were me, I’d narrow it down to the two most affordable schools if you like them equally otherwise. | It’s all about licensing and how much time you want to spend in school. Ultimately you need to take your exams. Your NCARB record is the most important piece of the puzzle, IMHO. I recommend you visit the NCARB site and determine how you want to proceed. 4, 5 years of school, or more? You choose. But make sure you are able to take the exams and get your NCARB file complete. | 0 | 41,372 | 2 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i38bjuw | i36pxqy | 1,648,998,619 | 1,648,959,987 | 2 | 0 | It’s all about licensing and how much time you want to spend in school. Ultimately you need to take your exams. Your NCARB record is the most important piece of the puzzle, IMHO. I recommend you visit the NCARB site and determine how you want to proceed. 4, 5 years of school, or more? You choose. But make sure you are able to take the exams and get your NCARB file complete. | 4+2 is better. Having masters opens a lot of doors both in the field or if you want to work outside of it. Where I live most people did B.Arch. I have absolutely been given more opportunity because i am one of the few have a graduate degree. I am technically more educated than firm leadership If you really want to open doors do a 4+3 with a bachelors in another field like business management etc. | 1 | 38,632 | 2,000 | ||
tuxp7s | architecture_train | 0.92 | B.S. in Architecture vs. a B.Arch I was recently accepted into the University of Virginia, UT Austin, and Carnegie Mellon for architecture. However, UVA only offers the 4-year program, whereas UT and CMU also offer the 5-year program. They all seem like great schools, so I'm stuck on which path to choose. Any advice on the programs and schools would be appreciated, thank you! | i3ykv8s | i36pxqy | 1,649,456,176 | 1,648,959,987 | 1 | 0 | I would definitely go for the 5-year program. As biased as this may sound, I would go with UT (and did, lol) based on the cost alone. I am a freshman at UT Austin and am pursuing the B.Arch so if you want to hear more about what your first year would look like at UT let me know | 4+2 is better. Having masters opens a lot of doors both in the field or if you want to work outside of it. Where I live most people did B.Arch. I have absolutely been given more opportunity because i am one of the few have a graduate degree. I am technically more educated than firm leadership If you really want to open doors do a 4+3 with a bachelors in another field like business management etc. | 1 | 496,189 | 1,000 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6hc8g6 | e6gwe4r | 1,537,693,648 | 1,537,668,749 | 7 | 2 | Not in the US, but we never build houses here in NZ from bricks. That is because bricks are not able to be reinforced and are high mass and fairly inelastic, so are not suitable in an earthquake prone area. We can use bricks for cladding only, but they are a single layer tied back to the timber or steel structure, so in a quake they do not fall on people. Concrete structures here have a lot of steel reinforcing with longitudinal bars and lateral stirrups which provide elasticity and caging mesh to enclose any crumbling in a quake. At least part of the US is an earthquake prone area, so they may have similar construction requirements in those areas. ​ | So you can renovate houses easily by tearing them down with your bear hands. Don't wanna renovate your brick house with your bear hands. | 1 | 24,899 | 3.5 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6ha5la | e6hc8g6 | 1,537,689,070 | 1,537,693,648 | 1 | 7 | As someone mentioned, it might just be a thing where there are more mason in other country while TONS of carpenter in US. My speculation would be that masonry are more intuitive methods (mix a with b, pour it/spread it on, wait/put solid thing on it, repeat), while wood frame requires calculations, measuring, and complimentary engineered materials, like anchor bolts and brackets. Also, I'd think lumber is more readily available to US than Brazil. | Not in the US, but we never build houses here in NZ from bricks. That is because bricks are not able to be reinforced and are high mass and fairly inelastic, so are not suitable in an earthquake prone area. We can use bricks for cladding only, but they are a single layer tied back to the timber or steel structure, so in a quake they do not fall on people. Concrete structures here have a lot of steel reinforcing with longitudinal bars and lateral stirrups which provide elasticity and caging mesh to enclose any crumbling in a quake. At least part of the US is an earthquake prone area, so they may have similar construction requirements in those areas. ​ | 0 | 4,578 | 7 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6h04ts | e6hc8g6 | 1,537,672,977 | 1,537,693,648 | 2 | 7 | Ok, none of these responses are right. What you are seeing is non weight bearing walls. Most wood. Constructed structures have structural walls and non structural walls. Removing non structural walls is easy and fast. Structural walls require you placing supports around where walls are being removed. American construction is done to standards greater than IBC codes generally. I do not know how strict the building codes for Brazil are, but I am positive they are not as rigorous as in the US or Europe. | Not in the US, but we never build houses here in NZ from bricks. That is because bricks are not able to be reinforced and are high mass and fairly inelastic, so are not suitable in an earthquake prone area. We can use bricks for cladding only, but they are a single layer tied back to the timber or steel structure, so in a quake they do not fall on people. Concrete structures here have a lot of steel reinforcing with longitudinal bars and lateral stirrups which provide elasticity and caging mesh to enclose any crumbling in a quake. At least part of the US is an earthquake prone area, so they may have similar construction requirements in those areas. ​ | 0 | 20,671 | 3.5 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6gwe4r | e6hijuw | 1,537,668,749 | 1,537,706,420 | 2 | 3 | So you can renovate houses easily by tearing them down with your bear hands. Don't wanna renovate your brick house with your bear hands. | Because most of the walls aren’t load bearing. So you build them as thin as possible out of wood and gypsum boards. Which saves time and money while also making the house easier to modify after it’s built | 0 | 37,671 | 1.5 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6hqyoh | e6gwe4r | 1,537,716,025 | 1,537,668,749 | 3 | 2 | If you go back to older homes in the US you do see a lot of brick. Brick can last a long time but is susceptible to impact, earthquakes, and a host of other dangerous weather conditions. And it requires more time and skill to build. Brick is your structure and shell and thermal envelope. If you look at the codes for a stick framed house you will see they are incredibly strong, elastic, and repairable. Interior walls are generally not load bearing so they do not need to be strong other than separating rooms. This makes houses faster to build and less expensive. We also have a lot of fast growing wood that's renewable so using it over masonry makes a lot of sense. | So you can renovate houses easily by tearing them down with your bear hands. Don't wanna renovate your brick house with your bear hands. | 1 | 47,276 | 1.5 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6hijuw | e6ha5la | 1,537,706,420 | 1,537,689,070 | 3 | 1 | Because most of the walls aren’t load bearing. So you build them as thin as possible out of wood and gypsum boards. Which saves time and money while also making the house easier to modify after it’s built | As someone mentioned, it might just be a thing where there are more mason in other country while TONS of carpenter in US. My speculation would be that masonry are more intuitive methods (mix a with b, pour it/spread it on, wait/put solid thing on it, repeat), while wood frame requires calculations, measuring, and complimentary engineered materials, like anchor bolts and brackets. Also, I'd think lumber is more readily available to US than Brazil. | 1 | 17,350 | 3 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6hijuw | e6h04ts | 1,537,706,420 | 1,537,672,977 | 3 | 2 | Because most of the walls aren’t load bearing. So you build them as thin as possible out of wood and gypsum boards. Which saves time and money while also making the house easier to modify after it’s built | Ok, none of these responses are right. What you are seeing is non weight bearing walls. Most wood. Constructed structures have structural walls and non structural walls. Removing non structural walls is easy and fast. Structural walls require you placing supports around where walls are being removed. American construction is done to standards greater than IBC codes generally. I do not know how strict the building codes for Brazil are, but I am positive they are not as rigorous as in the US or Europe. | 1 | 33,443 | 1.5 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6hqyoh | e6ha5la | 1,537,716,025 | 1,537,689,070 | 3 | 1 | If you go back to older homes in the US you do see a lot of brick. Brick can last a long time but is susceptible to impact, earthquakes, and a host of other dangerous weather conditions. And it requires more time and skill to build. Brick is your structure and shell and thermal envelope. If you look at the codes for a stick framed house you will see they are incredibly strong, elastic, and repairable. Interior walls are generally not load bearing so they do not need to be strong other than separating rooms. This makes houses faster to build and less expensive. We also have a lot of fast growing wood that's renewable so using it over masonry makes a lot of sense. | As someone mentioned, it might just be a thing where there are more mason in other country while TONS of carpenter in US. My speculation would be that masonry are more intuitive methods (mix a with b, pour it/spread it on, wait/put solid thing on it, repeat), while wood frame requires calculations, measuring, and complimentary engineered materials, like anchor bolts and brackets. Also, I'd think lumber is more readily available to US than Brazil. | 1 | 26,955 | 3 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6hqyoh | e6hogb0 | 1,537,716,025 | 1,537,713,531 | 3 | 1 | If you go back to older homes in the US you do see a lot of brick. Brick can last a long time but is susceptible to impact, earthquakes, and a host of other dangerous weather conditions. And it requires more time and skill to build. Brick is your structure and shell and thermal envelope. If you look at the codes for a stick framed house you will see they are incredibly strong, elastic, and repairable. Interior walls are generally not load bearing so they do not need to be strong other than separating rooms. This makes houses faster to build and less expensive. We also have a lot of fast growing wood that's renewable so using it over masonry makes a lot of sense. | We in the US have a wood construction industry that goes back 100’s of years. We also have energy requirements that implicate certain minimum amounts of insulation. Wood and light gauge steel framing allow for cavities in the exterior walls for that insulation. Load bearing masonry does not typically meet those energy requirements. | 1 | 2,494 | 3 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6hqyoh | e6h04ts | 1,537,716,025 | 1,537,672,977 | 3 | 2 | If you go back to older homes in the US you do see a lot of brick. Brick can last a long time but is susceptible to impact, earthquakes, and a host of other dangerous weather conditions. And it requires more time and skill to build. Brick is your structure and shell and thermal envelope. If you look at the codes for a stick framed house you will see they are incredibly strong, elastic, and repairable. Interior walls are generally not load bearing so they do not need to be strong other than separating rooms. This makes houses faster to build and less expensive. We also have a lot of fast growing wood that's renewable so using it over masonry makes a lot of sense. | Ok, none of these responses are right. What you are seeing is non weight bearing walls. Most wood. Constructed structures have structural walls and non structural walls. Removing non structural walls is easy and fast. Structural walls require you placing supports around where walls are being removed. American construction is done to standards greater than IBC codes generally. I do not know how strict the building codes for Brazil are, but I am positive they are not as rigorous as in the US or Europe. | 1 | 43,048 | 1.5 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6kdxn4 | e6ha5la | 1,537,816,907 | 1,537,689,070 | 2 | 1 | Residential housing in the US has largely become disposable, since the suburbanization of major cities after WWII. We just don't build things to last, it is much less expensive to build disposable buildings. An "old" building here may be 100-150 years old. In Europe or further east you'll find 2000 year old buildings still in use! We do use concrete for foundations, and in some cases for walls, but stone and brick are largely decorative, and non-load bearing. | As someone mentioned, it might just be a thing where there are more mason in other country while TONS of carpenter in US. My speculation would be that masonry are more intuitive methods (mix a with b, pour it/spread it on, wait/put solid thing on it, repeat), while wood frame requires calculations, measuring, and complimentary engineered materials, like anchor bolts and brackets. Also, I'd think lumber is more readily available to US than Brazil. | 1 | 127,837 | 2 | ||
9i4c44 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are american houses so fragile? [ask] Where I live (Brazil) most, if not all, houses are build using bricks and cement - from the wealthy mansions to slums and housing projects. I was watching a "renovation reality show" and the people can take down wall almost with their bare hands. Why are homes in the US built like that? | e6kdxn4 | e6hogb0 | 1,537,816,907 | 1,537,713,531 | 2 | 1 | Residential housing in the US has largely become disposable, since the suburbanization of major cities after WWII. We just don't build things to last, it is much less expensive to build disposable buildings. An "old" building here may be 100-150 years old. In Europe or further east you'll find 2000 year old buildings still in use! We do use concrete for foundations, and in some cases for walls, but stone and brick are largely decorative, and non-load bearing. | We in the US have a wood construction industry that goes back 100’s of years. We also have energy requirements that implicate certain minimum amounts of insulation. Wood and light gauge steel framing allow for cavities in the exterior walls for that insulation. Load bearing masonry does not typically meet those energy requirements. | 1 | 103,376 | 2 | ||
kratex | architecture_train | 0.83 | How many Licensed Native American Architects are there? [ask] Hello all, my name is Jacqueline. I am having trouble gathering some info and thought I'd turn to a few subreddits for help. I currently work at a 100% female Native American owned Architecture firm as an intern. I am attempting to research some statistics on Native American Architects. Ideally I would like to figure out what the number of licensed Native American Architects in the US and their gender. I have used the NCARB website and found some 2020 data, but it's not exactly what I am looking for. I have looked all over and a lot of sites that organize by demographic don't even have a Native American category. Help would be greatly appreciated! | gi9t7m7 | gi9sl9s | 1,609,909,318 | 1,609,908,980 | 4 | 2 | You probably are aware of the AICAE: The American Indian Council of Architects and Engineers. They have a website, are links allowed on Reddit? | I wonder if it would be easier to work the problem from the other end? Contact schools of architecture in the USA and see if they have data on Native American graduates. When I applied to architecture schools in the USA, there were boxes to check on race. That data went somewhere. It’s possible a Native American could have studied and graduated from a school outside the USA. It’d be rare as financial incentives would be greater in the US for a US citizen, thinking of loans, scholarships, specialty funding, etc. | 1 | 338 | 2 | ||
8rwnp4 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Why are there so many similar features in built homes [MISC][ASK] I don't know where else to ask this but I figured this could be a good place. I am looking to get a house built in the near future but I found it odd so many builders had such similar features and wondered if there was a reason. For instance, in the master bath, the toilet was in a small little room by itself. Something my wife found very claustrophobic. Another thing that was odd was the closet to the master was attached to the bathroom instead of being attached to the master. There were a few other things that seemed to be only some of the builders, like the 2nd and 3rd bedroom were near the front of the house and were basically facing each other. Found it very strange and wondered if this was something that was regional or cyclical or something else entirely? | e0vby1l | e0vimwl | 1,529,329,975 | 1,529,336,468 | 1 | 5 | Builders in an area all tend to aim at the same safe design (at least what they perceive to be safe) that sells in their given area. Where I live it means a ridiculous number of gables on the outside (even if they have no interior effect—some are pure wasted space). They’re motivated to sell to a common denominator home buyer (not lowest common denominator, at least not all builders aim at it). So if they see a trend that sells more, they will pursue it. Funny enough, I haven’t seen the closet bathroom trends you describe in as many recent builds here as there used to be—but they certainly are still happening. Nowadays if I see it it’s probably because the designer they have on staff (not usually an architect) backed themselves into a corner on space considerations. I’ve seen more master closets with doors to both bedroom and bathroom. | If you want something designed for you, hire an architect, not a "builder". | 0 | 6,493 | 5 | ||
91xecb | architecture_train | 0.92 | ask] Why Are Many Brutalist Buildings shaped like Inverted Pyramids? It seems (correct me if I'm wrong, please) that this shape of building was very popular during the brutalist boom. My question is, why is that so many architects from all over the world (from [São Paulo, to Boston, to Hanoi) decided to build in this shape and why you don't see that in other styles. Another example: the Geisel Library at UC San Diego *Processing img blizu9yep6c11...* | e31lrwy | e31p38l | 1,532,569,137 | 1,532,572,459 | 7 | 18 | I know in at least one case, the former supercomputer and now foreign language building at University of Illinois (my alma) was designed that way with a large central atrium so that if it ever was bombed by the USSR and collapsed, the building parts would fall away from, and not on top of, the large central computer in the base. Edit: Building | My best guess would be a mix of two reasons. The first is because for of all of history we weren't able to easily handle overhangs like this so like any time we innovate, designers were excited to push limits. But maybe more likely, it was carry over from modernist ideals from architects like Le Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation projects where there was a strong concept that the ground was too important to be for any single person, so they were left open and accessible while floors above held the programming. As for why a pyramid vs a different form, I think is more because it's a strong form from history and more easily structured than other shapes because of its symmetry. At my university there was a brutalist library that was two pyramids. The theory was because it was built to be riot proof (you couldn't climb it) but like a lot of design concept stories I'd put money on that rumor being thought up long after the library was built. | 0 | 3,322 | 2.571429 | ||
91xecb | architecture_train | 0.92 | ask] Why Are Many Brutalist Buildings shaped like Inverted Pyramids? It seems (correct me if I'm wrong, please) that this shape of building was very popular during the brutalist boom. My question is, why is that so many architects from all over the world (from [São Paulo, to Boston, to Hanoi) decided to build in this shape and why you don't see that in other styles. Another example: the Geisel Library at UC San Diego *Processing img blizu9yep6c11...* | e31n3im | e31p38l | 1,532,570,437 | 1,532,572,459 | 3 | 18 | you get the sense of it looming over you from any angle i suppose | My best guess would be a mix of two reasons. The first is because for of all of history we weren't able to easily handle overhangs like this so like any time we innovate, designers were excited to push limits. But maybe more likely, it was carry over from modernist ideals from architects like Le Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation projects where there was a strong concept that the ground was too important to be for any single person, so they were left open and accessible while floors above held the programming. As for why a pyramid vs a different form, I think is more because it's a strong form from history and more easily structured than other shapes because of its symmetry. At my university there was a brutalist library that was two pyramids. The theory was because it was built to be riot proof (you couldn't climb it) but like a lot of design concept stories I'd put money on that rumor being thought up long after the library was built. | 0 | 2,022 | 6 | ||
91xecb | architecture_train | 0.92 | ask] Why Are Many Brutalist Buildings shaped like Inverted Pyramids? It seems (correct me if I'm wrong, please) that this shape of building was very popular during the brutalist boom. My question is, why is that so many architects from all over the world (from [São Paulo, to Boston, to Hanoi) decided to build in this shape and why you don't see that in other styles. Another example: the Geisel Library at UC San Diego *Processing img blizu9yep6c11...* | e31p38l | e31p16o | 1,532,572,459 | 1,532,572,400 | 18 | 2 | My best guess would be a mix of two reasons. The first is because for of all of history we weren't able to easily handle overhangs like this so like any time we innovate, designers were excited to push limits. But maybe more likely, it was carry over from modernist ideals from architects like Le Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation projects where there was a strong concept that the ground was too important to be for any single person, so they were left open and accessible while floors above held the programming. As for why a pyramid vs a different form, I think is more because it's a strong form from history and more easily structured than other shapes because of its symmetry. At my university there was a brutalist library that was two pyramids. The theory was because it was built to be riot proof (you couldn't climb it) but like a lot of design concept stories I'd put money on that rumor being thought up long after the library was built. | I always thought it as to make them more intimidating and authoritarian, akin to a colonnade. | 1 | 59 | 9 | ||
91xecb | architecture_train | 0.92 | ask] Why Are Many Brutalist Buildings shaped like Inverted Pyramids? It seems (correct me if I'm wrong, please) that this shape of building was very popular during the brutalist boom. My question is, why is that so many architects from all over the world (from [São Paulo, to Boston, to Hanoi) decided to build in this shape and why you don't see that in other styles. Another example: the Geisel Library at UC San Diego *Processing img blizu9yep6c11...* | e31n3im | e31waad | 1,532,570,437 | 1,532,580,757 | 3 | 7 | you get the sense of it looming over you from any angle i suppose | A lot of classical building rules (wider than tall, vertical columns, emphasized stone at the bottom) are to make things look grounded, stable, unlikely to collapse. It’s subconsciously disquieting when a building doesn't follow these rules. Brutalism is partly about making an individual feel small, unwelcome, overwhelmed, uncomfortable. So Brutalist architects liked the disquiting, unstable look that showed the strength of the materials and their techniques, and let them thumb their nose at architectural tradition. | 0 | 10,320 | 2.333333 | ||
91xecb | architecture_train | 0.92 | ask] Why Are Many Brutalist Buildings shaped like Inverted Pyramids? It seems (correct me if I'm wrong, please) that this shape of building was very popular during the brutalist boom. My question is, why is that so many architects from all over the world (from [São Paulo, to Boston, to Hanoi) decided to build in this shape and why you don't see that in other styles. Another example: the Geisel Library at UC San Diego *Processing img blizu9yep6c11...* | e31p16o | e31waad | 1,532,572,400 | 1,532,580,757 | 2 | 7 | I always thought it as to make them more intimidating and authoritarian, akin to a colonnade. | A lot of classical building rules (wider than tall, vertical columns, emphasized stone at the bottom) are to make things look grounded, stable, unlikely to collapse. It’s subconsciously disquieting when a building doesn't follow these rules. Brutalism is partly about making an individual feel small, unwelcome, overwhelmed, uncomfortable. So Brutalist architects liked the disquiting, unstable look that showed the strength of the materials and their techniques, and let them thumb their nose at architectural tradition. | 0 | 8,357 | 3.5 | ||
dcyhj2 | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] Is Calculus a required course to become an architect? I'm currently an 11th grader in high school in the US. Architecture is a field I'm very interested in pursuing. I've completed drafting 1 and 2 with a certification in Revit, and I'm currently taking intro to engineering. My roadblock, however, is that I'm really struggling in math currently. I'm barely passing by Precalc with a 72 right now. I really think I would die if I took Calculus next year. I'm wondering about taking AP Statistics instead, but would that kill my dream of becoming an architect? Do I really have to take Calculus to pursue an architecture career or could I take Statistics instead and be fine? | f2culh8 | f2d22cn | 1,570,142,939 | 1,570,145,879 | 2 | 5 | Not particularly. We deal with static buildings. Engineers work with dynamics. A little calculus never hurts though :) | No, you don't *need* to take calculus for architecture school. That said, getting more comfortable with abstract math would be a definite net positive. Math is a really useful design tool! I'd personally argue that getting a leg up on that will do more for you than delving too deeply into drafting and the like early on. | 0 | 2,940 | 2.5 | ||
dcyhj2 | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] Is Calculus a required course to become an architect? I'm currently an 11th grader in high school in the US. Architecture is a field I'm very interested in pursuing. I've completed drafting 1 and 2 with a certification in Revit, and I'm currently taking intro to engineering. My roadblock, however, is that I'm really struggling in math currently. I'm barely passing by Precalc with a 72 right now. I really think I would die if I took Calculus next year. I'm wondering about taking AP Statistics instead, but would that kill my dream of becoming an architect? Do I really have to take Calculus to pursue an architecture career or could I take Statistics instead and be fine? | f2d22cn | f2cvldu | 1,570,145,879 | 1,570,143,362 | 5 | 1 | No, you don't *need* to take calculus for architecture school. That said, getting more comfortable with abstract math would be a definite net positive. Math is a really useful design tool! I'd personally argue that getting a leg up on that will do more for you than delving too deeply into drafting and the like early on. | It might vary from school to school, but I’m guessing no since they all abide by certain criteria for certification. My college dropped the calculus requirement my second semester and the graduating classes thereafter did not need to take the class for the architecture degree. | 1 | 2,517 | 5 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrcm80e | hrc19ij | 1,641,388,746 | 1,641,374,637 | 25 | 7 | Do you work for a very large firm? They are basically famous for this crap. I worked for a large firm that you've almost definitely heard of and it almost made me leave the industry for good. They would hire batches of like 10 new employees with the intention of firing 8-9 of them before a year. They had a billion excuses for this behavior - like, oh the job you're working on is done, bye bye. I made it for 18 months, did better than most, then my boss went off on me one day in a late night email because the client liked me better than him and I quit the next morning. Carrying my box out as the sun was coming up was the best damn feeling in my life. (I had no backup plan and a three month old at home, for the record.) I did some other stuff for a year and then went to work at a five man shop. I'll have been here five years in June. We dont work overtime, we don't work weekends. We don't take on work we can't do efficiently, and we all make pretty good money. Look for something else, friend. There's better stuff out there. | Depends where you're from I guess. I'm Finnish and if that's your working conditions now I'd say that's super rare and quit now please and also tell your union about your employer. | 1 | 14,109 | 3.571429 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrc5rmg | hrcm80e | 1,641,378,133 | 1,641,388,746 | 8 | 25 | Nah. Depends where you work and what you do. I work at a consultancy alongside a large architecture team (I have a B Arch but work in a different team) and we all work about 8 hour days, with some overtime here and there if something big is due. Of course, pay is still probably less than most architects would like, which is pretty universal. Weekend work is very rare - maybe a few times a year if a deliverable is very behind and due soon. I am in Australia by the way. Architects aren't paid what they deserve (which is why I chose to work in a different area) but the hours are generally reasonable and on par with most other design professions. | Do you work for a very large firm? They are basically famous for this crap. I worked for a large firm that you've almost definitely heard of and it almost made me leave the industry for good. They would hire batches of like 10 new employees with the intention of firing 8-9 of them before a year. They had a billion excuses for this behavior - like, oh the job you're working on is done, bye bye. I made it for 18 months, did better than most, then my boss went off on me one day in a late night email because the client liked me better than him and I quit the next morning. Carrying my box out as the sun was coming up was the best damn feeling in my life. (I had no backup plan and a three month old at home, for the record.) I did some other stuff for a year and then went to work at a five man shop. I'll have been here five years in June. We dont work overtime, we don't work weekends. We don't take on work we can't do efficiently, and we all make pretty good money. Look for something else, friend. There's better stuff out there. | 0 | 10,613 | 3.125 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrcm80e | hrc7ng3 | 1,641,388,746 | 1,641,379,560 | 25 | 3 | Do you work for a very large firm? They are basically famous for this crap. I worked for a large firm that you've almost definitely heard of and it almost made me leave the industry for good. They would hire batches of like 10 new employees with the intention of firing 8-9 of them before a year. They had a billion excuses for this behavior - like, oh the job you're working on is done, bye bye. I made it for 18 months, did better than most, then my boss went off on me one day in a late night email because the client liked me better than him and I quit the next morning. Carrying my box out as the sun was coming up was the best damn feeling in my life. (I had no backup plan and a three month old at home, for the record.) I did some other stuff for a year and then went to work at a five man shop. I'll have been here five years in June. We dont work overtime, we don't work weekends. We don't take on work we can't do efficiently, and we all make pretty good money. Look for something else, friend. There's better stuff out there. | Where are you based? Also if you are working for a starchitect practice that does appear the norm. I knew someone who got a call on Saturday asking them to go in on Sunday. Starchitect practice. | 1 | 9,186 | 8.333333 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrc7qkj | hrcm80e | 1,641,379,627 | 1,641,388,746 | 2 | 25 | No... shitting bricks you will be, if cram times only available the ideas you have... patience padawan... i too shit bricks... hehe - yodarch | Do you work for a very large firm? They are basically famous for this crap. I worked for a large firm that you've almost definitely heard of and it almost made me leave the industry for good. They would hire batches of like 10 new employees with the intention of firing 8-9 of them before a year. They had a billion excuses for this behavior - like, oh the job you're working on is done, bye bye. I made it for 18 months, did better than most, then my boss went off on me one day in a late night email because the client liked me better than him and I quit the next morning. Carrying my box out as the sun was coming up was the best damn feeling in my life. (I had no backup plan and a three month old at home, for the record.) I did some other stuff for a year and then went to work at a five man shop. I'll have been here five years in June. We dont work overtime, we don't work weekends. We don't take on work we can't do efficiently, and we all make pretty good money. Look for something else, friend. There's better stuff out there. | 0 | 9,119 | 12.5 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrc5rmg | hrc19ij | 1,641,378,133 | 1,641,374,637 | 8 | 7 | Nah. Depends where you work and what you do. I work at a consultancy alongside a large architecture team (I have a B Arch but work in a different team) and we all work about 8 hour days, with some overtime here and there if something big is due. Of course, pay is still probably less than most architects would like, which is pretty universal. Weekend work is very rare - maybe a few times a year if a deliverable is very behind and due soon. I am in Australia by the way. Architects aren't paid what they deserve (which is why I chose to work in a different area) but the hours are generally reasonable and on par with most other design professions. | Depends where you're from I guess. I'm Finnish and if that's your working conditions now I'd say that's super rare and quit now please and also tell your union about your employer. | 1 | 3,496 | 1.142857 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrd3rwt | hrc7ng3 | 1,641,396,579 | 1,641,379,560 | 6 | 3 | Doesn’t have to be. Depends on country and firm. | Where are you based? Also if you are working for a starchitect practice that does appear the norm. I knew someone who got a call on Saturday asking them to go in on Sunday. Starchitect practice. | 1 | 17,019 | 2 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrd3rwt | hrd0yo0 | 1,641,396,579 | 1,641,395,448 | 6 | 3 | Doesn’t have to be. Depends on country and firm. | I have actually been very lucky and having only worked for relatively small firms, I work on an hourly basis. Overtime only happens when absolutely necessary (less than 10 extra hours per month), but I get paid 1.5x for those extra hours. Sure, my hourly rate isn’t exactly where I want it to be and because of the size of my firm, and I don’t get to work on the most exciting projects, but overall it’s pretty low stress. I’m not making the argument that this is the norm, just giving you a perspective from someone who isn’t being exploited to let you know it’s possible (In the US btw). | 1 | 1,131 | 2 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrc7qkj | hrd3rwt | 1,641,379,627 | 1,641,396,579 | 2 | 6 | No... shitting bricks you will be, if cram times only available the ideas you have... patience padawan... i too shit bricks... hehe - yodarch | Doesn’t have to be. Depends on country and firm. | 0 | 16,952 | 3 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrc7qkj | hrd0yo0 | 1,641,379,627 | 1,641,395,448 | 2 | 3 | No... shitting bricks you will be, if cram times only available the ideas you have... patience padawan... i too shit bricks... hehe - yodarch | I have actually been very lucky and having only worked for relatively small firms, I work on an hourly basis. Overtime only happens when absolutely necessary (less than 10 extra hours per month), but I get paid 1.5x for those extra hours. Sure, my hourly rate isn’t exactly where I want it to be and because of the size of my firm, and I don’t get to work on the most exciting projects, but overall it’s pretty low stress. I’m not making the argument that this is the norm, just giving you a perspective from someone who isn’t being exploited to let you know it’s possible (In the US btw). | 0 | 15,821 | 1.5 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrd4am5 | hrc7qkj | 1,641,396,788 | 1,641,379,627 | 3 | 2 | In my neck of the woods (Colorado, USA), no. Not unless you deliberately choose a firm that has that. Most firms are coming into the new age and realize that’s not healthy. And right now with a high demand for various jobs in the architecture industry, new employees have more power. Here there are more jobs than there are workers, so the workers have a lot more say in what they want. If the firm doesn’t wanna give them what they want, they can look for a better deal elsewhere. | No... shitting bricks you will be, if cram times only available the ideas you have... patience padawan... i too shit bricks... hehe - yodarch | 1 | 17,161 | 1.5 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrjq9ng | hrekidu | 1,641,505,125 | 1,641,416,641 | 2 | 1 | Just be happy you're not an architectural DRAFTER. I know a lot of architects and haven't heard a single one of them say they were happy about it. Sure, they're happy the day they get their little rubber stamp, but then it's all 24/7 work and hair loss. You guys go design the stuff, I'll be happy being the peon that gets blamed for all the mistakes while MY drawings are the ones everyone is looking at for how to build the thing. | I think it depends on the firm. I work for one that is a full A/E firm about 200 employees total, with lots of government contracts. We are only required to work 40 hours a week. If we need to work over to get a project completed, we are paid overtime, but they are legally not allowed to ask us to do that. | 1 | 88,484 | 2 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrf57fk | hrjq9ng | 1,641,424,737 | 1,641,505,125 | 1 | 2 | Not necessarily. I only work like 30 hours a week, but maybe I’m special 😋 | Just be happy you're not an architectural DRAFTER. I know a lot of architects and haven't heard a single one of them say they were happy about it. Sure, they're happy the day they get their little rubber stamp, but then it's all 24/7 work and hair loss. You guys go design the stuff, I'll be happy being the peon that gets blamed for all the mistakes while MY drawings are the ones everyone is looking at for how to build the thing. | 0 | 80,388 | 2 | ||
rwihf2 | architecture_train | 0.81 | As an archutect, am I doomed to explotation, overtime, weekend work, etc.? I mean, I have been working for about half a year since I graduate school, and the whole architecture industry seems to have very bad woeking conditions. | hrjq9ng | hrfwt5q | 1,641,505,125 | 1,641,438,680 | 2 | 1 | Just be happy you're not an architectural DRAFTER. I know a lot of architects and haven't heard a single one of them say they were happy about it. Sure, they're happy the day they get their little rubber stamp, but then it's all 24/7 work and hair loss. You guys go design the stuff, I'll be happy being the peon that gets blamed for all the mistakes while MY drawings are the ones everyone is looking at for how to build the thing. | You are not doomed to this. I know it’s common in some practices (particularly larger and older firms), but in my experience, smaller companies don’t do that to employees. Start looking for a place that values its employees. One thing I think helps to look for is the hiring process. The place I’m at now has people interview with managers and executives, but also with potential future colleagues (separately). It’s nice to be able to ask someone in a similar role about the work culture. Now that you have this experience, you’ll be able to make better decisions in the future… you’re actually gaining some important insight in your current circumstances. | 1 | 66,445 | 2 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvmp11c | fvmpf1b | 1,592,827,963 | 1,592,828,261 | 3 | 14 | Because we aren’t in classical times. Methods and materials have changed so that the new ways of building are vastly cheaper and more expedient than the crafting and ornamentation of classical architecture. Also hundreds of years of refining and experimenting with style have brought new ways of using design to express some of the same sentiments that classical ornament does | Some do, e.g. Quinlan Terry and Robert AM Stern, and they are known as New Classicists. More modern architectural styles are simply more in demand. This has to do partially with cost, partially with simple aesthetic preference, partially with the decline of the disciplines of craftsmanship needed to produce classical ornament. A big part of many people's distaste for the style lies in the fact that it no longer seems a "genuine" way to build, as /u/frogmanthedogman articulates well. It's not a style I would personally like to design in, as most of the New Classicism I see is usually, in my eyes, inferior mimicry of the historic buildings it's based on (Case in point IMO), though there are exceptions. However, the world is a big place and there is room for this sort of design, given how many people are passionate about traditional styles. | 0 | 298 | 4.666667 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvmp540 | fvmpf1b | 1,592,828,052 | 1,592,828,261 | 3 | 14 | We do in rare cases, but it seems to be shunned. I don't understand why either, letting an art form die is a terrible thing. Perhaps people forget that we can bring back art without bringing back toxic culture from the same time period. Money may be a factor in some cases, but modern technology allows for classical features to be far cheaper than ever before. | Some do, e.g. Quinlan Terry and Robert AM Stern, and they are known as New Classicists. More modern architectural styles are simply more in demand. This has to do partially with cost, partially with simple aesthetic preference, partially with the decline of the disciplines of craftsmanship needed to produce classical ornament. A big part of many people's distaste for the style lies in the fact that it no longer seems a "genuine" way to build, as /u/frogmanthedogman articulates well. It's not a style I would personally like to design in, as most of the New Classicism I see is usually, in my eyes, inferior mimicry of the historic buildings it's based on (Case in point IMO), though there are exceptions. However, the world is a big place and there is room for this sort of design, given how many people are passionate about traditional styles. | 0 | 209 | 4.666667 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvmp11c | fvmsonb | 1,592,827,963 | 1,592,830,622 | 3 | 9 | Because we aren’t in classical times. Methods and materials have changed so that the new ways of building are vastly cheaper and more expedient than the crafting and ornamentation of classical architecture. Also hundreds of years of refining and experimenting with style have brought new ways of using design to express some of the same sentiments that classical ornament does | This question pops up frequently in this sub. Below is a response I’ve given before: Schools stopped teaching classical architecture around WWII, in exchange for a modernist approach that included a polemic strongly opposed to classical and traditional architecture. Today, academia is still largely in that same ideological mindset when it comes to classical work, and this has a hold on the profession as a whole. Until academia finds a way to embrace classicism in a studio format, it will continue to be a small group. I’ve spent my professional career working on or designing new classical buildings in various styles. They are perfectly feasible with today’s economics and builders. There are other architects who do this as well, and you can find them through The Institute for Classical Architecture and Art](www.classicist.org), or the [International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism](www.intbau.org). Additionally, there are more and more craftsmen getting into the mix. The [American College of the Building Arts has programs that train artisans to be able to work in stone metals, wood, etc. Some of the established shops out there do work in preservation as well as new construction in various styles: Plaster: Hyde Park Foster Reeve Balmer Stone: Bybee Stone Traditional Cut Stone Quarra Stone Metals: Historical Arts and Castings Les Metalliers Champenois | 0 | 2,659 | 3 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvmp540 | fvmsonb | 1,592,828,052 | 1,592,830,622 | 3 | 9 | We do in rare cases, but it seems to be shunned. I don't understand why either, letting an art form die is a terrible thing. Perhaps people forget that we can bring back art without bringing back toxic culture from the same time period. Money may be a factor in some cases, but modern technology allows for classical features to be far cheaper than ever before. | This question pops up frequently in this sub. Below is a response I’ve given before: Schools stopped teaching classical architecture around WWII, in exchange for a modernist approach that included a polemic strongly opposed to classical and traditional architecture. Today, academia is still largely in that same ideological mindset when it comes to classical work, and this has a hold on the profession as a whole. Until academia finds a way to embrace classicism in a studio format, it will continue to be a small group. I’ve spent my professional career working on or designing new classical buildings in various styles. They are perfectly feasible with today’s economics and builders. There are other architects who do this as well, and you can find them through The Institute for Classical Architecture and Art](www.classicist.org), or the [International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism](www.intbau.org). Additionally, there are more and more craftsmen getting into the mix. The [American College of the Building Arts has programs that train artisans to be able to work in stone metals, wood, etc. Some of the established shops out there do work in preservation as well as new construction in various styles: Plaster: Hyde Park Foster Reeve Balmer Stone: Bybee Stone Traditional Cut Stone Quarra Stone Metals: Historical Arts and Castings Les Metalliers Champenois | 0 | 2,570 | 3 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvmqecz | fvmsonb | 1,592,828,998 | 1,592,830,622 | 1 | 9 | Through history few buildings were actually built in this manner but has they were expensive public buildings they're the ones who got maintained so they survived. | This question pops up frequently in this sub. Below is a response I’ve given before: Schools stopped teaching classical architecture around WWII, in exchange for a modernist approach that included a polemic strongly opposed to classical and traditional architecture. Today, academia is still largely in that same ideological mindset when it comes to classical work, and this has a hold on the profession as a whole. Until academia finds a way to embrace classicism in a studio format, it will continue to be a small group. I’ve spent my professional career working on or designing new classical buildings in various styles. They are perfectly feasible with today’s economics and builders. There are other architects who do this as well, and you can find them through The Institute for Classical Architecture and Art](www.classicist.org), or the [International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture & Urbanism](www.intbau.org). Additionally, there are more and more craftsmen getting into the mix. The [American College of the Building Arts has programs that train artisans to be able to work in stone metals, wood, etc. Some of the established shops out there do work in preservation as well as new construction in various styles: Plaster: Hyde Park Foster Reeve Balmer Stone: Bybee Stone Traditional Cut Stone Quarra Stone Metals: Historical Arts and Castings Les Metalliers Champenois | 0 | 1,624 | 9 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvmp11c | fvnwh1s | 1,592,827,963 | 1,592,851,747 | 3 | 4 | Because we aren’t in classical times. Methods and materials have changed so that the new ways of building are vastly cheaper and more expedient than the crafting and ornamentation of classical architecture. Also hundreds of years of refining and experimenting with style have brought new ways of using design to express some of the same sentiments that classical ornament does | Because classical architecture is woefully inadecuate to the vast majority of demands modern society puts on architecture, as you will see the second you step out of the very narrow set of contexts where it still is useful. It is not inadequate per se- it just prioritizes a certain set of demands that are not really a priority anymore for the vast majority of what needs to be done. The horrifying monstrosity u/archineering linked is a good example of what happens when you try to cram it into scales and contexts that it is not ready to work with. OTOH, if that thing ever gets built, the state of Virginia can get cheap and reliable energy by hooking up a dynamo to Thomas Jefferson's rotating corpse. There are indeed plenty of classicist architects nowadays -and all of them work in nice, shiny baubles for very rich clients. Nice work, made by very competent people, but barely a drop in the sea of what society demands from architecture. They will tell you that a massive conspiracy of evil modernists prevents them from gaining mainstream acceptance. The truth is, the classical language prioritizes a very narrow and definite set of scales, uses, contexts, etc, and breaks down once it steps out of there. That set was useful in a pre-industrial society where "architecture" was something that only made sense for an incredibly narrow set of society. Once "architecture" was redefined for a much wider set of societal expectations (for example, how to provide with a cheap yet dignified dwelling to the vast majority of humankind, which was not something "serious" architecture really cared about before 1800), it started to stop making sense in most contexts. But it was not its fault. It's not about the classical language being rigid or rote or academic or anything like that -it is a beautiful and versatile language that served western society (well, the parts that were able to pay for it) for a very long time. Once western society started prioritizing things that the classical language was simply not ready for, it started to break down -and you can really see the progress of this breakdown during the 19th century if you know where to look at. Beaux Arts style is a last attempt to gain lost relevance by being excessive and bombastic - starchitecture for the 19th century. Well, much like late 20th century starchitecture, it is cool to look at, but not tenable in the long run. Contemporary New Traditional Architects do not really look up to it, for good reason. Beaux-Arts classicism had died on its own decades before Modernism became mainstream. In 1902 one Tony Garnier won the Prix De Rome, the pinnacle of acadamic Beaux Arts education - and then went on to design this as part of his thesis. And it wasn't even a scandal. The writing was on the wall already. And Garnier was no modernist -his built work between 1910 and 1940 is a very fine example of late-late classicism in France. Modernists themselves were happy to tell the myth of the sudden, clear cut with tradition, because it made them seem cooler, but the truth is much murkier. The truth is that between 1910 and 1940 most classicist architecture done in the western world was already becoming more and more stripped down, geometric and sober, and dispensing with all sorts of ornamentation. Even when the nazis and soviets banned modernism and tried to go back to classical tradition, they ended up with that hyper-stripped down hybrid that we now associate with totalitarian architecture, not with any actual return to classicism. And that did not come out of nowhere. It was the last step in a long, long path of language breakdown, degeneration and simplification that had begun at least in 1750. WWII and the mainstream acceptance of modernism did not kill classicism out of nowhere -they just put out of their misery what was then seen as the dying breaths of a very, very long tradition that had outlived its usefulness. The people that killed classicism were people who had been educated under it, and who felt appreciation and respect for it -enough to know what to do with it. Even then, it gave us beautiful things such as the work of Lutyens or Eliel Saarinen, or Paul Cret, which is a testament to the strength of the tradition that underpinned it. But it was a last hurrah. | 0 | 23,784 | 1.333333 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvnwh1s | fvmp540 | 1,592,851,747 | 1,592,828,052 | 4 | 3 | Because classical architecture is woefully inadecuate to the vast majority of demands modern society puts on architecture, as you will see the second you step out of the very narrow set of contexts where it still is useful. It is not inadequate per se- it just prioritizes a certain set of demands that are not really a priority anymore for the vast majority of what needs to be done. The horrifying monstrosity u/archineering linked is a good example of what happens when you try to cram it into scales and contexts that it is not ready to work with. OTOH, if that thing ever gets built, the state of Virginia can get cheap and reliable energy by hooking up a dynamo to Thomas Jefferson's rotating corpse. There are indeed plenty of classicist architects nowadays -and all of them work in nice, shiny baubles for very rich clients. Nice work, made by very competent people, but barely a drop in the sea of what society demands from architecture. They will tell you that a massive conspiracy of evil modernists prevents them from gaining mainstream acceptance. The truth is, the classical language prioritizes a very narrow and definite set of scales, uses, contexts, etc, and breaks down once it steps out of there. That set was useful in a pre-industrial society where "architecture" was something that only made sense for an incredibly narrow set of society. Once "architecture" was redefined for a much wider set of societal expectations (for example, how to provide with a cheap yet dignified dwelling to the vast majority of humankind, which was not something "serious" architecture really cared about before 1800), it started to stop making sense in most contexts. But it was not its fault. It's not about the classical language being rigid or rote or academic or anything like that -it is a beautiful and versatile language that served western society (well, the parts that were able to pay for it) for a very long time. Once western society started prioritizing things that the classical language was simply not ready for, it started to break down -and you can really see the progress of this breakdown during the 19th century if you know where to look at. Beaux Arts style is a last attempt to gain lost relevance by being excessive and bombastic - starchitecture for the 19th century. Well, much like late 20th century starchitecture, it is cool to look at, but not tenable in the long run. Contemporary New Traditional Architects do not really look up to it, for good reason. Beaux-Arts classicism had died on its own decades before Modernism became mainstream. In 1902 one Tony Garnier won the Prix De Rome, the pinnacle of acadamic Beaux Arts education - and then went on to design this as part of his thesis. And it wasn't even a scandal. The writing was on the wall already. And Garnier was no modernist -his built work between 1910 and 1940 is a very fine example of late-late classicism in France. Modernists themselves were happy to tell the myth of the sudden, clear cut with tradition, because it made them seem cooler, but the truth is much murkier. The truth is that between 1910 and 1940 most classicist architecture done in the western world was already becoming more and more stripped down, geometric and sober, and dispensing with all sorts of ornamentation. Even when the nazis and soviets banned modernism and tried to go back to classical tradition, they ended up with that hyper-stripped down hybrid that we now associate with totalitarian architecture, not with any actual return to classicism. And that did not come out of nowhere. It was the last step in a long, long path of language breakdown, degeneration and simplification that had begun at least in 1750. WWII and the mainstream acceptance of modernism did not kill classicism out of nowhere -they just put out of their misery what was then seen as the dying breaths of a very, very long tradition that had outlived its usefulness. The people that killed classicism were people who had been educated under it, and who felt appreciation and respect for it -enough to know what to do with it. Even then, it gave us beautiful things such as the work of Lutyens or Eliel Saarinen, or Paul Cret, which is a testament to the strength of the tradition that underpinned it. But it was a last hurrah. | We do in rare cases, but it seems to be shunned. I don't understand why either, letting an art form die is a terrible thing. Perhaps people forget that we can bring back art without bringing back toxic culture from the same time period. Money may be a factor in some cases, but modern technology allows for classical features to be far cheaper than ever before. | 1 | 23,695 | 1.333333 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvmqecz | fvnwh1s | 1,592,828,998 | 1,592,851,747 | 1 | 4 | Through history few buildings were actually built in this manner but has they were expensive public buildings they're the ones who got maintained so they survived. | Because classical architecture is woefully inadecuate to the vast majority of demands modern society puts on architecture, as you will see the second you step out of the very narrow set of contexts where it still is useful. It is not inadequate per se- it just prioritizes a certain set of demands that are not really a priority anymore for the vast majority of what needs to be done. The horrifying monstrosity u/archineering linked is a good example of what happens when you try to cram it into scales and contexts that it is not ready to work with. OTOH, if that thing ever gets built, the state of Virginia can get cheap and reliable energy by hooking up a dynamo to Thomas Jefferson's rotating corpse. There are indeed plenty of classicist architects nowadays -and all of them work in nice, shiny baubles for very rich clients. Nice work, made by very competent people, but barely a drop in the sea of what society demands from architecture. They will tell you that a massive conspiracy of evil modernists prevents them from gaining mainstream acceptance. The truth is, the classical language prioritizes a very narrow and definite set of scales, uses, contexts, etc, and breaks down once it steps out of there. That set was useful in a pre-industrial society where "architecture" was something that only made sense for an incredibly narrow set of society. Once "architecture" was redefined for a much wider set of societal expectations (for example, how to provide with a cheap yet dignified dwelling to the vast majority of humankind, which was not something "serious" architecture really cared about before 1800), it started to stop making sense in most contexts. But it was not its fault. It's not about the classical language being rigid or rote or academic or anything like that -it is a beautiful and versatile language that served western society (well, the parts that were able to pay for it) for a very long time. Once western society started prioritizing things that the classical language was simply not ready for, it started to break down -and you can really see the progress of this breakdown during the 19th century if you know where to look at. Beaux Arts style is a last attempt to gain lost relevance by being excessive and bombastic - starchitecture for the 19th century. Well, much like late 20th century starchitecture, it is cool to look at, but not tenable in the long run. Contemporary New Traditional Architects do not really look up to it, for good reason. Beaux-Arts classicism had died on its own decades before Modernism became mainstream. In 1902 one Tony Garnier won the Prix De Rome, the pinnacle of acadamic Beaux Arts education - and then went on to design this as part of his thesis. And it wasn't even a scandal. The writing was on the wall already. And Garnier was no modernist -his built work between 1910 and 1940 is a very fine example of late-late classicism in France. Modernists themselves were happy to tell the myth of the sudden, clear cut with tradition, because it made them seem cooler, but the truth is much murkier. The truth is that between 1910 and 1940 most classicist architecture done in the western world was already becoming more and more stripped down, geometric and sober, and dispensing with all sorts of ornamentation. Even when the nazis and soviets banned modernism and tried to go back to classical tradition, they ended up with that hyper-stripped down hybrid that we now associate with totalitarian architecture, not with any actual return to classicism. And that did not come out of nowhere. It was the last step in a long, long path of language breakdown, degeneration and simplification that had begun at least in 1750. WWII and the mainstream acceptance of modernism did not kill classicism out of nowhere -they just put out of their misery what was then seen as the dying breaths of a very, very long tradition that had outlived its usefulness. The people that killed classicism were people who had been educated under it, and who felt appreciation and respect for it -enough to know what to do with it. Even then, it gave us beautiful things such as the work of Lutyens or Eliel Saarinen, or Paul Cret, which is a testament to the strength of the tradition that underpinned it. But it was a last hurrah. | 0 | 22,749 | 4 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvnwh1s | fvnh90d | 1,592,851,747 | 1,592,844,224 | 4 | 1 | Because classical architecture is woefully inadecuate to the vast majority of demands modern society puts on architecture, as you will see the second you step out of the very narrow set of contexts where it still is useful. It is not inadequate per se- it just prioritizes a certain set of demands that are not really a priority anymore for the vast majority of what needs to be done. The horrifying monstrosity u/archineering linked is a good example of what happens when you try to cram it into scales and contexts that it is not ready to work with. OTOH, if that thing ever gets built, the state of Virginia can get cheap and reliable energy by hooking up a dynamo to Thomas Jefferson's rotating corpse. There are indeed plenty of classicist architects nowadays -and all of them work in nice, shiny baubles for very rich clients. Nice work, made by very competent people, but barely a drop in the sea of what society demands from architecture. They will tell you that a massive conspiracy of evil modernists prevents them from gaining mainstream acceptance. The truth is, the classical language prioritizes a very narrow and definite set of scales, uses, contexts, etc, and breaks down once it steps out of there. That set was useful in a pre-industrial society where "architecture" was something that only made sense for an incredibly narrow set of society. Once "architecture" was redefined for a much wider set of societal expectations (for example, how to provide with a cheap yet dignified dwelling to the vast majority of humankind, which was not something "serious" architecture really cared about before 1800), it started to stop making sense in most contexts. But it was not its fault. It's not about the classical language being rigid or rote or academic or anything like that -it is a beautiful and versatile language that served western society (well, the parts that were able to pay for it) for a very long time. Once western society started prioritizing things that the classical language was simply not ready for, it started to break down -and you can really see the progress of this breakdown during the 19th century if you know where to look at. Beaux Arts style is a last attempt to gain lost relevance by being excessive and bombastic - starchitecture for the 19th century. Well, much like late 20th century starchitecture, it is cool to look at, but not tenable in the long run. Contemporary New Traditional Architects do not really look up to it, for good reason. Beaux-Arts classicism had died on its own decades before Modernism became mainstream. In 1902 one Tony Garnier won the Prix De Rome, the pinnacle of acadamic Beaux Arts education - and then went on to design this as part of his thesis. And it wasn't even a scandal. The writing was on the wall already. And Garnier was no modernist -his built work between 1910 and 1940 is a very fine example of late-late classicism in France. Modernists themselves were happy to tell the myth of the sudden, clear cut with tradition, because it made them seem cooler, but the truth is much murkier. The truth is that between 1910 and 1940 most classicist architecture done in the western world was already becoming more and more stripped down, geometric and sober, and dispensing with all sorts of ornamentation. Even when the nazis and soviets banned modernism and tried to go back to classical tradition, they ended up with that hyper-stripped down hybrid that we now associate with totalitarian architecture, not with any actual return to classicism. And that did not come out of nowhere. It was the last step in a long, long path of language breakdown, degeneration and simplification that had begun at least in 1750. WWII and the mainstream acceptance of modernism did not kill classicism out of nowhere -they just put out of their misery what was then seen as the dying breaths of a very, very long tradition that had outlived its usefulness. The people that killed classicism were people who had been educated under it, and who felt appreciation and respect for it -enough to know what to do with it. Even then, it gave us beautiful things such as the work of Lutyens or Eliel Saarinen, or Paul Cret, which is a testament to the strength of the tradition that underpinned it. But it was a last hurrah. | It's expensive. In fact it's always been expensive, but there was social pressure and a sense of prestige in the past to spend that extra money. People still like classical buildings, the well preserved ones tend to consistently draw tourists, but people aren't wow'd by them the same way they are by cutting edge modern styles. | 1 | 7,523 | 4 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvn4z8d | fvnwh1s | 1,592,837,936 | 1,592,851,747 | -2 | 4 | why don't you ride a horse to work anymore ? | Because classical architecture is woefully inadecuate to the vast majority of demands modern society puts on architecture, as you will see the second you step out of the very narrow set of contexts where it still is useful. It is not inadequate per se- it just prioritizes a certain set of demands that are not really a priority anymore for the vast majority of what needs to be done. The horrifying monstrosity u/archineering linked is a good example of what happens when you try to cram it into scales and contexts that it is not ready to work with. OTOH, if that thing ever gets built, the state of Virginia can get cheap and reliable energy by hooking up a dynamo to Thomas Jefferson's rotating corpse. There are indeed plenty of classicist architects nowadays -and all of them work in nice, shiny baubles for very rich clients. Nice work, made by very competent people, but barely a drop in the sea of what society demands from architecture. They will tell you that a massive conspiracy of evil modernists prevents them from gaining mainstream acceptance. The truth is, the classical language prioritizes a very narrow and definite set of scales, uses, contexts, etc, and breaks down once it steps out of there. That set was useful in a pre-industrial society where "architecture" was something that only made sense for an incredibly narrow set of society. Once "architecture" was redefined for a much wider set of societal expectations (for example, how to provide with a cheap yet dignified dwelling to the vast majority of humankind, which was not something "serious" architecture really cared about before 1800), it started to stop making sense in most contexts. But it was not its fault. It's not about the classical language being rigid or rote or academic or anything like that -it is a beautiful and versatile language that served western society (well, the parts that were able to pay for it) for a very long time. Once western society started prioritizing things that the classical language was simply not ready for, it started to break down -and you can really see the progress of this breakdown during the 19th century if you know where to look at. Beaux Arts style is a last attempt to gain lost relevance by being excessive and bombastic - starchitecture for the 19th century. Well, much like late 20th century starchitecture, it is cool to look at, but not tenable in the long run. Contemporary New Traditional Architects do not really look up to it, for good reason. Beaux-Arts classicism had died on its own decades before Modernism became mainstream. In 1902 one Tony Garnier won the Prix De Rome, the pinnacle of acadamic Beaux Arts education - and then went on to design this as part of his thesis. And it wasn't even a scandal. The writing was on the wall already. And Garnier was no modernist -his built work between 1910 and 1940 is a very fine example of late-late classicism in France. Modernists themselves were happy to tell the myth of the sudden, clear cut with tradition, because it made them seem cooler, but the truth is much murkier. The truth is that between 1910 and 1940 most classicist architecture done in the western world was already becoming more and more stripped down, geometric and sober, and dispensing with all sorts of ornamentation. Even when the nazis and soviets banned modernism and tried to go back to classical tradition, they ended up with that hyper-stripped down hybrid that we now associate with totalitarian architecture, not with any actual return to classicism. And that did not come out of nowhere. It was the last step in a long, long path of language breakdown, degeneration and simplification that had begun at least in 1750. WWII and the mainstream acceptance of modernism did not kill classicism out of nowhere -they just put out of their misery what was then seen as the dying breaths of a very, very long tradition that had outlived its usefulness. The people that killed classicism were people who had been educated under it, and who felt appreciation and respect for it -enough to know what to do with it. Even then, it gave us beautiful things such as the work of Lutyens or Eliel Saarinen, or Paul Cret, which is a testament to the strength of the tradition that underpinned it. But it was a last hurrah. | 0 | 13,811 | -2 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvqhlg2 | fvmqecz | 1,592,913,875 | 1,592,828,998 | 3 | 1 | Because clients don't ask us to | Through history few buildings were actually built in this manner but has they were expensive public buildings they're the ones who got maintained so they survived. | 1 | 84,877 | 3 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvqhlg2 | fvnh90d | 1,592,913,875 | 1,592,844,224 | 3 | 1 | Because clients don't ask us to | It's expensive. In fact it's always been expensive, but there was social pressure and a sense of prestige in the past to spend that extra money. People still like classical buildings, the well preserved ones tend to consistently draw tourists, but people aren't wow'd by them the same way they are by cutting edge modern styles. | 1 | 69,651 | 3 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvny7sm | fvqhlg2 | 1,592,852,603 | 1,592,913,875 | 1 | 3 | Cost, taste, context. Pretty long list of reasons, but mainly, not everyone likes it, and it doesn't fit into most contexts. | Because clients don't ask us to | 0 | 61,272 | 3 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvqhlg2 | fvn4z8d | 1,592,913,875 | 1,592,837,936 | 3 | -2 | Because clients don't ask us to | why don't you ride a horse to work anymore ? | 1 | 75,939 | -1.5 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvn4z8d | fvnh90d | 1,592,837,936 | 1,592,844,224 | -2 | 1 | why don't you ride a horse to work anymore ? | It's expensive. In fact it's always been expensive, but there was social pressure and a sense of prestige in the past to spend that extra money. People still like classical buildings, the well preserved ones tend to consistently draw tourists, but people aren't wow'd by them the same way they are by cutting edge modern styles. | 0 | 6,288 | -0.5 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvn4z8d | fvny7sm | 1,592,837,936 | 1,592,852,603 | -2 | 1 | why don't you ride a horse to work anymore ? | Cost, taste, context. Pretty long list of reasons, but mainly, not everyone likes it, and it doesn't fit into most contexts. | 0 | 14,667 | -0.5 | ||
hdr4ps | architecture_train | 0.73 | Architects of r/architecture why don't we still build with classical features anymore? ? | fvn4z8d | fw0977p | 1,592,837,936 | 1,593,127,048 | -2 | 1 | why don't you ride a horse to work anymore ? | Classical architecture is born as a response to stereotomic construction and the constraints of using stone as a primary building material for large projects. Nowadays, it’s cheaper to use steel, wood, and concrete. If you use those materials to emulate “classical” architecture, it’s a bit misleading. Plus, you have to disguise the structural work with expensive finishes for an objectively lesser building than what you’re trying to achieve. I’d rather enjoy seeing an original gothic cathedral than a steel frame dressed up to look like one. | 0 | 289,112 | -0.5 | ||
ue14v9 | architecture_train | 0.9 | Crediting Architect / Designer on "Building" posts I noticed a lot of the eyecandy "Building" posts don't include designers in the post title or description. As a sub that celebrates architecture, credit should be given where credit is due! I don't think it'll be too onerous to include a rule that require name of building, name of architect in the title at a minimum. Most of the projects posted are already lacking any sort of additional context that would generate any meaningful discussion. Having the architect's name will at least point people towards them if they are interested in the work. | i6kt4qx | i6k99on | 1,651,177,056 | 1,651,169,203 | 10 | -1 | This is a great idea, I want to be able to look up buildings I see here and learn more! | Why do you feel it is not happening now? Just like every book had an author, every building has an architect. | 1 | 7,853 | -10 | ||
ue14v9 | architecture_train | 0.9 | Crediting Architect / Designer on "Building" posts I noticed a lot of the eyecandy "Building" posts don't include designers in the post title or description. As a sub that celebrates architecture, credit should be given where credit is due! I don't think it'll be too onerous to include a rule that require name of building, name of architect in the title at a minimum. Most of the projects posted are already lacking any sort of additional context that would generate any meaningful discussion. Having the architect's name will at least point people towards them if they are interested in the work. | i6k99on | i6mk3t8 | 1,651,169,203 | 1,651,205,335 | -1 | 3 | Why do you feel it is not happening now? Just like every book had an author, every building has an architect. | It’s a noble idea but would be very detrimental to the sub. 99.9% of us are producing work that could be very good or catch someone’s eye and they feel like they want to share and it could be fairly difficult to identify the original firm or designer. If I ever post a building I would want to try and credit if possible but a rule such as that would turn this into a starchitecture forum and miss the entire point. Not to mention that architecture isn’t just a single building or a building at all. | 0 | 36,132 | -3 | ||
ue14v9 | architecture_train | 0.9 | Crediting Architect / Designer on "Building" posts I noticed a lot of the eyecandy "Building" posts don't include designers in the post title or description. As a sub that celebrates architecture, credit should be given where credit is due! I don't think it'll be too onerous to include a rule that require name of building, name of architect in the title at a minimum. Most of the projects posted are already lacking any sort of additional context that would generate any meaningful discussion. Having the architect's name will at least point people towards them if they are interested in the work. | i6nqqgm | i6k99on | 1,651,236,156 | 1,651,169,203 | 1 | -1 | There’s usually not just one person working on the building, it wouldn’t be fair to just name the person who stamped it. Otherwise there would be quite a few names on each building. Maybe we could to do that somewhere inside, on a structural shear wall perhaps, or something that will never be removed from the structure. I do think putting built dates on a facade is far more interesting, and it doesn’t require a lot of exterior space. | Why do you feel it is not happening now? Just like every book had an author, every building has an architect. | 1 | 66,953 | -1 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb5ir8d | eb5cbnn | 1,544,032,663 | 1,544,028,213 | 60 | 34 | I spent a few years working with a "starchitect", on a joint venture project. At first I thought it was just that he was incredibly charming. In general, whenever he was around, everyone in the room was having a good time. He could convince the client and contractor of any part of the building that was important to him. I've never seen anything like it. He was a blast to be with weather we were working or partying, both of which we did a lot of. Eventually I also realized that he was also incredibly good at making decisions. Faced with a choice between two bad fixes, he would always find a better third option that made perfect design sense. In the almost twenty years of my career I have come across less than a handful of architects who could consistently and quickly make the best decision. It is definitely the mixture of these two abilities, a whole lot of hard work, and a significant amount of luck that brought him to the top. I have a lot of respect for him now. I came in expecting him to be a headache, but ended up with a completely different perspective. | The people you just mentioned are just famous. So . . . be famous. Starchitects probably aren't particularly better than other good architects, just like rock stars probably aren't better musicians than other good musicians, they just got lucky with breaking out. | 1 | 4,450 | 1.764706 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb5i4um | eb5ir8d | 1,544,032,252 | 1,544,032,663 | 12 | 60 | Marketing, luck, only taking on projects that will further their career, careful consideration and crafting of their brand, using press to their advantage | I spent a few years working with a "starchitect", on a joint venture project. At first I thought it was just that he was incredibly charming. In general, whenever he was around, everyone in the room was having a good time. He could convince the client and contractor of any part of the building that was important to him. I've never seen anything like it. He was a blast to be with weather we were working or partying, both of which we did a lot of. Eventually I also realized that he was also incredibly good at making decisions. Faced with a choice between two bad fixes, he would always find a better third option that made perfect design sense. In the almost twenty years of my career I have come across less than a handful of architects who could consistently and quickly make the best decision. It is definitely the mixture of these two abilities, a whole lot of hard work, and a significant amount of luck that brought him to the top. I have a lot of respect for him now. I came in expecting him to be a headache, but ended up with a completely different perspective. | 0 | 411 | 5 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb57guz | eb5ir8d | 1,544,024,718 | 1,544,032,663 | 11 | 60 | Also, you should design and build great projects. Don't forget that. | I spent a few years working with a "starchitect", on a joint venture project. At first I thought it was just that he was incredibly charming. In general, whenever he was around, everyone in the room was having a good time. He could convince the client and contractor of any part of the building that was important to him. I've never seen anything like it. He was a blast to be with weather we were working or partying, both of which we did a lot of. Eventually I also realized that he was also incredibly good at making decisions. Faced with a choice between two bad fixes, he would always find a better third option that made perfect design sense. In the almost twenty years of my career I have come across less than a handful of architects who could consistently and quickly make the best decision. It is definitely the mixture of these two abilities, a whole lot of hard work, and a significant amount of luck that brought him to the top. I have a lot of respect for him now. I came in expecting him to be a headache, but ended up with a completely different perspective. | 0 | 7,945 | 5.454545 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb5ir8d | eb5dq9a | 1,544,032,663 | 1,544,029,216 | 60 | 3 | I spent a few years working with a "starchitect", on a joint venture project. At first I thought it was just that he was incredibly charming. In general, whenever he was around, everyone in the room was having a good time. He could convince the client and contractor of any part of the building that was important to him. I've never seen anything like it. He was a blast to be with weather we were working or partying, both of which we did a lot of. Eventually I also realized that he was also incredibly good at making decisions. Faced with a choice between two bad fixes, he would always find a better third option that made perfect design sense. In the almost twenty years of my career I have come across less than a handful of architects who could consistently and quickly make the best decision. It is definitely the mixture of these two abilities, a whole lot of hard work, and a significant amount of luck that brought him to the top. I have a lot of respect for him now. I came in expecting him to be a headache, but ended up with a completely different perspective. | Keep looking at Nature. The ratios and proportions of mountains, flowers, trees, animals, all contribute to the sense of wellness and wonder we feel when in a certain area. 'Modern' almost always equates to unlivable, throwaway, wish-we-could-start-over blandness. Illustrate the complexity of nature, show beams and arches and spires even when they aren't required. Ignore the whimsical appeal of a 'swiss cheese skyscraper' that will age like a 3rd grade pasta-house project - even shipping containers have more potential because their form is a product of function that will enhance the design. | 1 | 3,447 | 20 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb5c896 | eb5ir8d | 1,544,028,145 | 1,544,032,663 | 3 | 60 | When you can take elements from former buildings, and incorporate them into your own work without blatantly ripping them off. This requires you to understand how previous architects thought through their work. The architects listed were able to take elements and ideas from former work, incorporate them into their own designs, and make them their own. Just compare and contrast the work of philip Johnson and Mies Van Der Rohe. | I spent a few years working with a "starchitect", on a joint venture project. At first I thought it was just that he was incredibly charming. In general, whenever he was around, everyone in the room was having a good time. He could convince the client and contractor of any part of the building that was important to him. I've never seen anything like it. He was a blast to be with weather we were working or partying, both of which we did a lot of. Eventually I also realized that he was also incredibly good at making decisions. Faced with a choice between two bad fixes, he would always find a better third option that made perfect design sense. In the almost twenty years of my career I have come across less than a handful of architects who could consistently and quickly make the best decision. It is definitely the mixture of these two abilities, a whole lot of hard work, and a significant amount of luck that brought him to the top. I have a lot of respect for him now. I came in expecting him to be a headache, but ended up with a completely different perspective. | 0 | 4,518 | 20 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb57guz | eb5cbnn | 1,544,024,718 | 1,544,028,213 | 11 | 34 | Also, you should design and build great projects. Don't forget that. | The people you just mentioned are just famous. So . . . be famous. Starchitects probably aren't particularly better than other good architects, just like rock stars probably aren't better musicians than other good musicians, they just got lucky with breaking out. | 0 | 3,495 | 3.090909 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb5c896 | eb5cbnn | 1,544,028,145 | 1,544,028,213 | 3 | 34 | When you can take elements from former buildings, and incorporate them into your own work without blatantly ripping them off. This requires you to understand how previous architects thought through their work. The architects listed were able to take elements and ideas from former work, incorporate them into their own designs, and make them their own. Just compare and contrast the work of philip Johnson and Mies Van Der Rohe. | The people you just mentioned are just famous. So . . . be famous. Starchitects probably aren't particularly better than other good architects, just like rock stars probably aren't better musicians than other good musicians, they just got lucky with breaking out. | 0 | 68 | 11.333333 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb57guz | eb5i4um | 1,544,024,718 | 1,544,032,252 | 11 | 12 | Also, you should design and build great projects. Don't forget that. | Marketing, luck, only taking on projects that will further their career, careful consideration and crafting of their brand, using press to their advantage | 0 | 7,534 | 1.090909 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb5dq9a | eb5i4um | 1,544,029,216 | 1,544,032,252 | 3 | 12 | Keep looking at Nature. The ratios and proportions of mountains, flowers, trees, animals, all contribute to the sense of wellness and wonder we feel when in a certain area. 'Modern' almost always equates to unlivable, throwaway, wish-we-could-start-over blandness. Illustrate the complexity of nature, show beams and arches and spires even when they aren't required. Ignore the whimsical appeal of a 'swiss cheese skyscraper' that will age like a 3rd grade pasta-house project - even shipping containers have more potential because their form is a product of function that will enhance the design. | Marketing, luck, only taking on projects that will further their career, careful consideration and crafting of their brand, using press to their advantage | 0 | 3,036 | 4 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb5c896 | eb5i4um | 1,544,028,145 | 1,544,032,252 | 3 | 12 | When you can take elements from former buildings, and incorporate them into your own work without blatantly ripping them off. This requires you to understand how previous architects thought through their work. The architects listed were able to take elements and ideas from former work, incorporate them into their own designs, and make them their own. Just compare and contrast the work of philip Johnson and Mies Van Der Rohe. | Marketing, luck, only taking on projects that will further their career, careful consideration and crafting of their brand, using press to their advantage | 0 | 4,107 | 4 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb6n0k3 | eb5dq9a | 1,544,060,205 | 1,544,029,216 | 6 | 3 | Inventors and dreamers are the masters of architecture | Keep looking at Nature. The ratios and proportions of mountains, flowers, trees, animals, all contribute to the sense of wellness and wonder we feel when in a certain area. 'Modern' almost always equates to unlivable, throwaway, wish-we-could-start-over blandness. Illustrate the complexity of nature, show beams and arches and spires even when they aren't required. Ignore the whimsical appeal of a 'swiss cheese skyscraper' that will age like a 3rd grade pasta-house project - even shipping containers have more potential because their form is a product of function that will enhance the design. | 1 | 30,989 | 2 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb5m4pv | eb6n0k3 | 1,544,034,833 | 1,544,060,205 | 3 | 6 | explore the ideas and theories that interest you and let that drive your designs. chances are you won't famous but at least you can be proud of your work. and if the work is good who knows! | Inventors and dreamers are the masters of architecture | 0 | 25,372 | 2 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb6n0k3 | eb5c896 | 1,544,060,205 | 1,544,028,145 | 6 | 3 | Inventors and dreamers are the masters of architecture | When you can take elements from former buildings, and incorporate them into your own work without blatantly ripping them off. This requires you to understand how previous architects thought through their work. The architects listed were able to take elements and ideas from former work, incorporate them into their own designs, and make them their own. Just compare and contrast the work of philip Johnson and Mies Van Der Rohe. | 1 | 32,060 | 2 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb6n0k3 | eb5tb37 | 1,544,060,205 | 1,544,039,420 | 6 | 2 | Inventors and dreamers are the masters of architecture | Because they are the full package. Expectation of Package Contents varies by consumer. | 1 | 20,785 | 3 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb5s6zh | eb6n0k3 | 1,544,038,702 | 1,544,060,205 | 1 | 6 | Ego | Inventors and dreamers are the masters of architecture | 0 | 21,503 | 6 | ||
a3d0ow | architecture_train | 0.88 | [Ask] What do you think it takes to be a master architect? Great architects like Le Corbusier, Zaha Hadid, Mies van der rohe, B.v Doshi, A.P Kanvinde, Frank Gehry and other world acclaimed 'Master Architects'. What do you think are the traits or qualities that made them them stand out from the rest. Is there a pattern to it? So far the only thing I've been able to think about are that all of them established a set of design ideologies and philosophies around which their projects revolved. | eb5s6zh | eb5tb37 | 1,544,038,702 | 1,544,039,420 | 1 | 2 | Ego | Because they are the full package. Expectation of Package Contents varies by consumer. | 0 | 718 | 2 | ||
if8z68 | architecture_train | 0.89 | Why did neoclassicist architects use copper as a building material if they knew it would rust and go green? Just the title question, nothing more. | g2m5nsi | g2macnw | 1,598,210,690 | 1,598,213,025 | 4 | 16 | Corrosion resistant, classy look, bendable to form | Copper doesn’t rust. It develops a highly desirable green patina when exposed to oxygen over time. That beautiful green patina actually protects the surface of copper to prevent any further exposure to oxygen and curbs corrosion. | 0 | 2,335 | 4 | ||
if8z68 | architecture_train | 0.89 | Why did neoclassicist architects use copper as a building material if they knew it would rust and go green? Just the title question, nothing more. | g2mf3lx | g2m5nsi | 1,598,215,437 | 1,598,210,690 | 7 | 4 | Because they knew it would develop a lovely green patina with time, which looks classy, fits well with greenery and protects the material underneath from actual corrosion. | Corrosion resistant, classy look, bendable to form | 1 | 4,747 | 1.75 | ||
f062j6 | architecture_train | 0.94 | [ask] Contemporary mass-market Australian home architecture - why is it so terrible and unfit for purpose? A few examples of the kind of houses I'll be talking about: https://imgur.com/a/jcybAbj I've been contemplating this subject for a while: why is mass-market contemporary Australian housing so utterly appalling and lacking in thought? Specifically, why are houses not designed properly for the climate? Australia has an addiction to something other than meth, an addiction to air-conditioning. Modern houses are built seemingly with the expectation that they'll be almost entirely reliant on air-conditioning for cooling, resulting in houses that are almost unliveable during summer if you don't run the air conditioner. There seems to be an obsession with floor-to-ceiling windows, particularly on the front of houses or on parts of the house that face the sun. I don't understand where this comes from, is it a demand of the market or forced upon the market by developers? And more importantly, why? I very rarely if ever see people who leave these windows open and exposed to the world, they nearly always have either internal blinds that are permanently closed or external roller shutters that are permanently closed, due to a combination of a desire for privacy and an attempt to keep the heat out. It's best described as like living inside of a greenhouse sometimes. I suspect this need to keep blinds shut all day also has something of a depressing effect on people's moods due to the lack of natural light. On top of this, eaves are as small as legally possible and (from what I've heard) until recently weren't required at all, resulting in zero shade over these giant windows or the thin plasterboard external walls. There's a lot of other issues I could bring up with modern Australian housing, but these are the specific two that really bug me. These stupid designs result in houses that are lacking in privacy and lacking in temperature regulation, utterly dependent on air-conditioning. They aren't environmentally sustainable or sensible and are generally unpleasant for humans to live in. So I guess my question is why? Why do we build houses like this in Australia? I've seen some people argue that it's cheap and we can't afford alternative methods of building, but I'd imagine that over the timespan someone resides in a new house, the cost of electricity from running an air-conditioner would completely cancel out any savings made from cheaping out on the house design. If market supply is influenced by consumer demand, then why do so many Australians have an obsession with giant windows that they keep covered up all day anyway? Why are the eaves so bloody tiny? | fgs1qgu | fgrxq2s | 1,581,067,079 | 1,581,061,735 | 9 | 4 | It's easier, any idiot can design it. Any idiot can build it. Any idiot can market and sell it. They likely meet all the expectations some people have about what a nice new home should look like with a large master suite, kitchen for entertaining, and more space than they actually need. You would very much like Glenn Murcutt's designs, if you don't already. | Similar issues in New Zealand. Loads of "Mediterranean" style terraced houses built with monolithic cladding and zero ability to handle the conditions. It's a catastrophy to be honest. | 1 | 5,344 | 2.25 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.