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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ylod1r | architecture_train | 0.9 | is there a 3d architecture design game or anything Hello I am looking for a 3d architecture design game or anything to help me with architecture.it would help me get my ideas in to my work better because 2d draws are not helping r/architecture please help me | iv0qj1w | iv0h3yj | 1,667,566,246 | 1,667,560,927 | 2 | 1 | SketchUp also has a free online version. | There aren’t really any architecture games. Sketch in 3 dimensions and study good architecture. Grasshopper and blender are useful for form-finding if logic and formulaic design is more your thing. | 1 | 5,319 | 2 | ||
ylod1r | architecture_train | 0.9 | is there a 3d architecture design game or anything Hello I am looking for a 3d architecture design game or anything to help me with architecture.it would help me get my ideas in to my work better because 2d draws are not helping r/architecture please help me | iv0qj1w | iv0832s | 1,667,566,246 | 1,667,554,057 | 2 | 1 | SketchUp also has a free online version. | Revit | 1 | 12,189 | 2 | ||
ylod1r | architecture_train | 0.9 | is there a 3d architecture design game or anything Hello I am looking for a 3d architecture design game or anything to help me with architecture.it would help me get my ideas in to my work better because 2d draws are not helping r/architecture please help me | iv0h3yj | iv2m32s | 1,667,560,927 | 1,667,593,534 | 1 | 2 | There aren’t really any architecture games. Sketch in 3 dimensions and study good architecture. Grasshopper and blender are useful for form-finding if logic and formulaic design is more your thing. | Cities: Skylines Subreddit about: https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/ | 0 | 32,607 | 2 | ||
ylod1r | architecture_train | 0.9 | is there a 3d architecture design game or anything Hello I am looking for a 3d architecture design game or anything to help me with architecture.it would help me get my ideas in to my work better because 2d draws are not helping r/architecture please help me | iv0832s | iv2m32s | 1,667,554,057 | 1,667,593,534 | 1 | 2 | Revit | Cities: Skylines Subreddit about: https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/ | 0 | 39,477 | 2 | ||
gvf7ao | architecture_train | 0.73 | If you have a $5m budget, and the vision is to creatively design a public artifact, what kind of landmark monument would you build? (It cost $4.5 million to build the Space Needle in 1962\*) The primary curatorial element: collaboratively installing an artistic and functional structure that inspires and elevates the social consciousness and technical sensibilities of the people. The winning design idea, by vote, will be funded by the International Institute of Creative Visions, will employ 100 people, and ultimately become an event space and tourist attraction. ^((/imaginative fiction)) | fst8xcv | fsq75xt | 1,591,233,634 | 1,591,172,703 | 1 | 0 | 5 Mil? That will get the campus a rather nice Mirror Fish, centered squatly on the quad. Inside Mirror Fish, luxuriant cusions accomidate several small groups, all situated to descretely observe passersby. The entrance will hidden or mis-directed, likely by the 'coral reef' in which it resides. This to camouflage environmental equipment to sustain the clouds which adorn the loft, and occasionally spout out it's gills. This in turn lending the benefit of having the interior nicely air-conditioned when needed. An upper level provides a vista. To exit the fish one must slide out it's tail. For this two-story fish to be 'blown' from one continuous moment of glass, make it 50 Mil, as it will need two custom ovens, a main and a cooling, that and months to cool. BTW: A whale is too expected and overdone, trope even. | a giant phallus | 1 | 60,931 | 1,000 | ||
psog35 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Which 3d modelling software is mostly used in Architecture Farms (Usa, Uk, Canada) 1. Revit 2. Archicad 3. 3ds max 4. Sketchup 5. Rhino | hdredwg | hdr8ff7 | 1,632,255,449 | 1,632,253,002 | 11 | 7 | (US) We use Sketchup for early concept modeling and client meetings, Revit once we start DD and CDs. Enscape if we need to render anything. We also keep AutoCAD installed for converting files and coordinating with Civil (our Civil doesn’t use Revit). | Mooooo | 1 | 2,447 | 1.571429 | ||
psog35 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Which 3d modelling software is mostly used in Architecture Farms (Usa, Uk, Canada) 1. Revit 2. Archicad 3. 3ds max 4. Sketchup 5. Rhino | hdredwg | hdqy17x | 1,632,255,449 | 1,632,248,716 | 11 | 2 | (US) We use Sketchup for early concept modeling and client meetings, Revit once we start DD and CDs. Enscape if we need to render anything. We also keep AutoCAD installed for converting files and coordinating with Civil (our Civil doesn’t use Revit). | I have used Revit at every single company I have worked/interned at. | 1 | 6,733 | 5.5 | ||
psog35 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Which 3d modelling software is mostly used in Architecture Farms (Usa, Uk, Canada) 1. Revit 2. Archicad 3. 3ds max 4. Sketchup 5. Rhino | hdredwg | hdr473h | 1,632,255,449 | 1,632,251,278 | 11 | 1 | (US) We use Sketchup for early concept modeling and client meetings, Revit once we start DD and CDs. Enscape if we need to render anything. We also keep AutoCAD installed for converting files and coordinating with Civil (our Civil doesn’t use Revit). | Revit almost exclusively from my work experience (maybe a little sketchup occasionally) in Canada. I know that a lot of more design-oriented firms (as opposed to more production oriented firms) use Rhino and Grasshopper in their conceptual design workflows to create more complex forms; however, even those firms would probably transition to Revit (or possibly CAD) to do their production drawings. | 1 | 4,171 | 11 | ||
psog35 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Which 3d modelling software is mostly used in Architecture Farms (Usa, Uk, Canada) 1. Revit 2. Archicad 3. 3ds max 4. Sketchup 5. Rhino | hdqy17x | hdr8ff7 | 1,632,248,716 | 1,632,253,002 | 2 | 7 | I have used Revit at every single company I have worked/interned at. | Mooooo | 0 | 4,286 | 3.5 | ||
psog35 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Which 3d modelling software is mostly used in Architecture Farms (Usa, Uk, Canada) 1. Revit 2. Archicad 3. 3ds max 4. Sketchup 5. Rhino | hdr473h | hdr8ff7 | 1,632,251,278 | 1,632,253,002 | 1 | 7 | Revit almost exclusively from my work experience (maybe a little sketchup occasionally) in Canada. I know that a lot of more design-oriented firms (as opposed to more production oriented firms) use Rhino and Grasshopper in their conceptual design workflows to create more complex forms; however, even those firms would probably transition to Revit (or possibly CAD) to do their production drawings. | Mooooo | 0 | 1,724 | 7 | ||
psog35 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Which 3d modelling software is mostly used in Architecture Farms (Usa, Uk, Canada) 1. Revit 2. Archicad 3. 3ds max 4. Sketchup 5. Rhino | hdqy17x | hds1tf6 | 1,632,248,716 | 1,632,265,827 | 2 | 3 | I have used Revit at every single company I have worked/interned at. | I’m going to cause sparks to fly, but Revit was initially designed for engineers. ArchiCad was designed for architects. Having used both in the industry, Revit is inferior. | 0 | 17,111 | 1.5 | ||
psog35 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Which 3d modelling software is mostly used in Architecture Farms (Usa, Uk, Canada) 1. Revit 2. Archicad 3. 3ds max 4. Sketchup 5. Rhino | hdr473h | hds1tf6 | 1,632,251,278 | 1,632,265,827 | 1 | 3 | Revit almost exclusively from my work experience (maybe a little sketchup occasionally) in Canada. I know that a lot of more design-oriented firms (as opposed to more production oriented firms) use Rhino and Grasshopper in their conceptual design workflows to create more complex forms; however, even those firms would probably transition to Revit (or possibly CAD) to do their production drawings. | I’m going to cause sparks to fly, but Revit was initially designed for engineers. ArchiCad was designed for architects. Having used both in the industry, Revit is inferior. | 0 | 14,549 | 3 | ||
psog35 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Which 3d modelling software is mostly used in Architecture Farms (Usa, Uk, Canada) 1. Revit 2. Archicad 3. 3ds max 4. Sketchup 5. Rhino | hdrh9mv | hds1tf6 | 1,632,256,654 | 1,632,265,827 | 1 | 3 | Revit is the most important for jobs. AutoCAD as well. Sketchup is good to know, you can learn in a week or 2 with a good teacher. I've been the only Rhino/3ds max person at a few jobs and it's great because I'm needed for that kind of work. For instance we needed a fibbonaci spiral staircase modeled in 3d. I also do renderings in 3ds max. Escape has its limitations as does revit. Photoshop, illustrator, and Indesign are other good programs to know. Some firms are using lumion but it doesn't work with our revit models for some reason so I don't use it. | I’m going to cause sparks to fly, but Revit was initially designed for engineers. ArchiCad was designed for architects. Having used both in the industry, Revit is inferior. | 0 | 9,173 | 3 | ||
psog35 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Which 3d modelling software is mostly used in Architecture Farms (Usa, Uk, Canada) 1. Revit 2. Archicad 3. 3ds max 4. Sketchup 5. Rhino | hdrrmr4 | hds1tf6 | 1,632,261,113 | 1,632,265,827 | 1 | 3 | The vast majority of documentation is done in Revit in the US. Autocad is still utilized, mainly by smaller firms with older management and also for coordinating with other disciplines as another person said. I've also used Rhino for various modeling tasks, usually either in conceptual phase or to do a study of a particular geometry that's quicker than modeling it in Revit. | I’m going to cause sparks to fly, but Revit was initially designed for engineers. ArchiCad was designed for architects. Having used both in the industry, Revit is inferior. | 0 | 4,714 | 3 | ||
psog35 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Which 3d modelling software is mostly used in Architecture Farms (Usa, Uk, Canada) 1. Revit 2. Archicad 3. 3ds max 4. Sketchup 5. Rhino | hds1tf6 | hds02jv | 1,632,265,827 | 1,632,265,002 | 3 | 1 | I’m going to cause sparks to fly, but Revit was initially designed for engineers. ArchiCad was designed for architects. Having used both in the industry, Revit is inferior. | Freaking Revit :/. | 1 | 825 | 3 | ||
psog35 | architecture_train | 0.93 | Which 3d modelling software is mostly used in Architecture Farms (Usa, Uk, Canada) 1. Revit 2. Archicad 3. 3ds max 4. Sketchup 5. Rhino | hds09kg | hds1tf6 | 1,632,265,095 | 1,632,265,827 | 1 | 3 | In Toronto a lot of people use SketchUp and it’s pretty easy to use | I’m going to cause sparks to fly, but Revit was initially designed for engineers. ArchiCad was designed for architects. Having used both in the industry, Revit is inferior. | 0 | 732 | 3 | ||
pr3ol6 | architecture_train | 1 | What skills do I need to develop now to do well in a future of architecture? I’m currently in the US Military and I have 2 more years left of my service. I’ve spent this time seriously figuring out what I want in life and I’ve settled on the idea of becoming an architect. I’m passionate about it and I can see how doing architecture could potentially satisfy myself in life. Since I still have 2 years of military service, I see this as valuable time to prepare myself and develop skills that will give me an advantage for when I actually get to start school. What are some basic skills that I could practice every day in order to make the most of this time now and have a good start later? I’d guess reading about architecture and practicing drawing. Recommendations on any books is greatly appreciated. Any books about the process of a project from start to finish? Also by the way, I read a book called Mastery by George Leonard which has greatly influenced the approach I want to take with architecture. One of the best books I’ve read with great life advice. | hdfteqt | hdgmj4c | 1,632,038,533 | 1,632,058,801 | -2 | 1 | Hi there, I'm not an architect but used to manage computer labs for AEC events around the world. We had Architects and Engineers etc show other AEC people new software and processes in these labs. Not sure about books but some of the most popular things at our labs I found were things like: Virtual reality/Mixed reality and Augmented reality - a lot of models would be set up so that people could manipulate/view them through these technologies. Coding/Python/Dynamo - a lot of the popular classes used Pyton to script the making of structures etc Gaming engines - Unity and Unreal engine/twinmotion were used as well and these were very popular classes Then you of course have things like Revit, Archicad, Rhino which are used a lot. Essentially, AEC people are very techy and are into everything haha. Good luck! | Sketching. Being able to sketch an idea with the proper perspective. Perspective, dimensions based around the horizon lines, that sells your idea to the average person. Being able to adapt an idea to paper quickly with the right perspective sells your ability more than any talking can do. Practice your sketching and perspectives | 0 | 20,268 | -0.5 | ||
pr3ol6 | architecture_train | 1 | What skills do I need to develop now to do well in a future of architecture? I’m currently in the US Military and I have 2 more years left of my service. I’ve spent this time seriously figuring out what I want in life and I’ve settled on the idea of becoming an architect. I’m passionate about it and I can see how doing architecture could potentially satisfy myself in life. Since I still have 2 years of military service, I see this as valuable time to prepare myself and develop skills that will give me an advantage for when I actually get to start school. What are some basic skills that I could practice every day in order to make the most of this time now and have a good start later? I’d guess reading about architecture and practicing drawing. Recommendations on any books is greatly appreciated. Any books about the process of a project from start to finish? Also by the way, I read a book called Mastery by George Leonard which has greatly influenced the approach I want to take with architecture. One of the best books I’ve read with great life advice. | hdgrd9i | hdfteqt | 1,632,061,145 | 1,632,038,533 | 1 | -2 | To start the path to practice architecture in the USA you need a NCARB accredited degree. There are a few 5 year BAs, but most are 3 year masters programs. | Hi there, I'm not an architect but used to manage computer labs for AEC events around the world. We had Architects and Engineers etc show other AEC people new software and processes in these labs. Not sure about books but some of the most popular things at our labs I found were things like: Virtual reality/Mixed reality and Augmented reality - a lot of models would be set up so that people could manipulate/view them through these technologies. Coding/Python/Dynamo - a lot of the popular classes used Pyton to script the making of structures etc Gaming engines - Unity and Unreal engine/twinmotion were used as well and these were very popular classes Then you of course have things like Revit, Archicad, Rhino which are used a lot. Essentially, AEC people are very techy and are into everything haha. Good luck! | 1 | 22,612 | -0.5 | ||
pr3ol6 | architecture_train | 1 | What skills do I need to develop now to do well in a future of architecture? I’m currently in the US Military and I have 2 more years left of my service. I’ve spent this time seriously figuring out what I want in life and I’ve settled on the idea of becoming an architect. I’m passionate about it and I can see how doing architecture could potentially satisfy myself in life. Since I still have 2 years of military service, I see this as valuable time to prepare myself and develop skills that will give me an advantage for when I actually get to start school. What are some basic skills that I could practice every day in order to make the most of this time now and have a good start later? I’d guess reading about architecture and practicing drawing. Recommendations on any books is greatly appreciated. Any books about the process of a project from start to finish? Also by the way, I read a book called Mastery by George Leonard which has greatly influenced the approach I want to take with architecture. One of the best books I’ve read with great life advice. | hdh3jd7 | hdfteqt | 1,632,066,396 | 1,632,038,533 | 1 | -2 | Sketching and take time to notice what you like and dislike about a building or space and eventually, how you might improve it. Eg. Is this door in the right place or would it be better here? Is the color palette suitable for the place? Is it too dark and dreary in this room? Could more windows be here? Noticing your environment more will help you think more critically when you're designing or updating a space. | Hi there, I'm not an architect but used to manage computer labs for AEC events around the world. We had Architects and Engineers etc show other AEC people new software and processes in these labs. Not sure about books but some of the most popular things at our labs I found were things like: Virtual reality/Mixed reality and Augmented reality - a lot of models would be set up so that people could manipulate/view them through these technologies. Coding/Python/Dynamo - a lot of the popular classes used Pyton to script the making of structures etc Gaming engines - Unity and Unreal engine/twinmotion were used as well and these were very popular classes Then you of course have things like Revit, Archicad, Rhino which are used a lot. Essentially, AEC people are very techy and are into everything haha. Good luck! | 1 | 27,863 | -0.5 | ||
pr3ol6 | architecture_train | 1 | What skills do I need to develop now to do well in a future of architecture? I’m currently in the US Military and I have 2 more years left of my service. I’ve spent this time seriously figuring out what I want in life and I’ve settled on the idea of becoming an architect. I’m passionate about it and I can see how doing architecture could potentially satisfy myself in life. Since I still have 2 years of military service, I see this as valuable time to prepare myself and develop skills that will give me an advantage for when I actually get to start school. What are some basic skills that I could practice every day in order to make the most of this time now and have a good start later? I’d guess reading about architecture and practicing drawing. Recommendations on any books is greatly appreciated. Any books about the process of a project from start to finish? Also by the way, I read a book called Mastery by George Leonard which has greatly influenced the approach I want to take with architecture. One of the best books I’ve read with great life advice. | hdfteqt | hdhf2uj | 1,632,038,533 | 1,632,071,174 | -2 | 1 | Hi there, I'm not an architect but used to manage computer labs for AEC events around the world. We had Architects and Engineers etc show other AEC people new software and processes in these labs. Not sure about books but some of the most popular things at our labs I found were things like: Virtual reality/Mixed reality and Augmented reality - a lot of models would be set up so that people could manipulate/view them through these technologies. Coding/Python/Dynamo - a lot of the popular classes used Pyton to script the making of structures etc Gaming engines - Unity and Unreal engine/twinmotion were used as well and these were very popular classes Then you of course have things like Revit, Archicad, Rhino which are used a lot. Essentially, AEC people are very techy and are into everything haha. Good luck! | Unlike any of your previous education (high school?) the time in the next 5-6 years of schooling are extremely important to use wisely. Your success in school will literally cut years out of time at mediocre firms and get you a spot at a great firm that will accelerate your career. The way to make the best of your time at school - be ready with the tools - learn as much of the software that you can before so you don’t have to spend valuable design time time learning software. You need a sketch tool like rhino or sketch up. You need a render tool like that enscape or lumion. You need a documentation tool like revit or archicad. And you need presentation tools - basically Adobe suite - photoshop, illustrator and indesign. Studying architecture (actual buildings, history and style) is kind of hard on your own because there is a larger context that can be hard to grasp without guidance. The best thing in my opinion for that is to study what is around you. Even simple structures - be observant. Think about how things are laid out. Study the human condition. Be critical. Have fun. Study new technologies that are making construction and building systems less energy intensive. | 0 | 32,641 | -0.5 | ||
pr3ol6 | architecture_train | 1 | What skills do I need to develop now to do well in a future of architecture? I’m currently in the US Military and I have 2 more years left of my service. I’ve spent this time seriously figuring out what I want in life and I’ve settled on the idea of becoming an architect. I’m passionate about it and I can see how doing architecture could potentially satisfy myself in life. Since I still have 2 years of military service, I see this as valuable time to prepare myself and develop skills that will give me an advantage for when I actually get to start school. What are some basic skills that I could practice every day in order to make the most of this time now and have a good start later? I’d guess reading about architecture and practicing drawing. Recommendations on any books is greatly appreciated. Any books about the process of a project from start to finish? Also by the way, I read a book called Mastery by George Leonard which has greatly influenced the approach I want to take with architecture. One of the best books I’ve read with great life advice. | hdikoxi | hdfteqt | 1,632,087,787 | 1,632,038,533 | 1 | -2 | Master the softwares, especially renderings. | Hi there, I'm not an architect but used to manage computer labs for AEC events around the world. We had Architects and Engineers etc show other AEC people new software and processes in these labs. Not sure about books but some of the most popular things at our labs I found were things like: Virtual reality/Mixed reality and Augmented reality - a lot of models would be set up so that people could manipulate/view them through these technologies. Coding/Python/Dynamo - a lot of the popular classes used Pyton to script the making of structures etc Gaming engines - Unity and Unreal engine/twinmotion were used as well and these were very popular classes Then you of course have things like Revit, Archicad, Rhino which are used a lot. Essentially, AEC people are very techy and are into everything haha. Good luck! | 1 | 49,254 | -0.5 | ||
byck93 | architecture_train | 0.83 | How to earn money and find jobs as an architecture student. [ask] I'm a third year architecture student and really in need of money, so after trying many ways to earn money (freelancing mainly) I was wondering what the best way to do so is, like what is the best platform for architecture students to use their skills to earn money on or something ? I'm leaving the question vague enough because any advice or information is welcome really. Thank you. | eqh1izm | eqh5u7l | 1,560,046,868 | 1,560,049,770 | 7 | 10 | I would apply to some arch firms. There isn’t much freelance work for an architecture student that will actually produce $$. | Try to find a construction gig. Architect grads who have built stuff always get a good look when their folios come across my desk. Fabrication shop, maybe some CNC will do too. Or work with a CDC (community development Corp) and build your networking chops. Pays cash now and experience for later. I wouldn't hire a third year intern anymore. Too much work on my end to get good work out of em. Takes months to learn standards and office practices. Summer internship is too quick. | 0 | 2,902 | 1.428571 | ||
90glug | architecture_train | 1 | [ASK] Looking to build interesting, eco friendly, small/container homes in USA, how do i go about finding the right architect? Hello everyone, Aspiring entrepreneur here, looking to build some cool sustainable homes which i want to plop in interesting locations. I am looking for an architect and i have no background in building or architecture. I do own an interesting mid century modern home though. Can anyone suggest how do i go about finding the right architect who can help bring my vision to reality ? any advice/help appreciated. I live in wilmington, DE. (Step brother of philadelphia( which is the step child of NYC) ). | e2quet3 | e2qsgyq | 1,532,118,306 | 1,532,116,647 | 5 | 3 | In all honesty (just a forewarning really) this is a terrible idea and you should abandon it immediately. I cant decide which part is worse, you want to use shipping containers, you want small homes (building departments hate small homes many jurisdictions rule this out with minimum home sizes) or that you want to plan homes without sites and "plop them down" without respect to the site. Shivers. DE is dominated by developers not professionals unfortunately so you have that hurdle too. | Have you looked at what your competition is doing? Dwell - 12 Tiny House Companies That Can Make Your Micro-Living Dreams Come True I'd start there, and look for an architect that has the design and marketing savy to help you separate from the pack. The architect should be familiar with the locales where you plan to build and fabricate these units, but the Architect could actually be located anywhere. The work of many architectural practices crosses borders. | 1 | 1,659 | 1.666667 | ||
90glug | architecture_train | 1 | [ASK] Looking to build interesting, eco friendly, small/container homes in USA, how do i go about finding the right architect? Hello everyone, Aspiring entrepreneur here, looking to build some cool sustainable homes which i want to plop in interesting locations. I am looking for an architect and i have no background in building or architecture. I do own an interesting mid century modern home though. Can anyone suggest how do i go about finding the right architect who can help bring my vision to reality ? any advice/help appreciated. I live in wilmington, DE. (Step brother of philadelphia( which is the step child of NYC) ). | e2quet3 | e2q7x07 | 1,532,118,306 | 1,532,099,500 | 5 | 2 | In all honesty (just a forewarning really) this is a terrible idea and you should abandon it immediately. I cant decide which part is worse, you want to use shipping containers, you want small homes (building departments hate small homes many jurisdictions rule this out with minimum home sizes) or that you want to plan homes without sites and "plop them down" without respect to the site. Shivers. DE is dominated by developers not professionals unfortunately so you have that hurdle too. | I'd suggest doing some research on your local ordinances, or the ordinances for the area's you're thinking about operating in, to see how friendly they are to tiny homes. Tiny homes generally don't require an Architect, and more often than not classify as a camper if on a trailer with wheels. Check with your local AIA for Architects. I'm sure there are tiny home enthusiast communities that could also help you learn about them. | 1 | 18,806 | 2.5 | ||
90glug | architecture_train | 1 | [ASK] Looking to build interesting, eco friendly, small/container homes in USA, how do i go about finding the right architect? Hello everyone, Aspiring entrepreneur here, looking to build some cool sustainable homes which i want to plop in interesting locations. I am looking for an architect and i have no background in building or architecture. I do own an interesting mid century modern home though. Can anyone suggest how do i go about finding the right architect who can help bring my vision to reality ? any advice/help appreciated. I live in wilmington, DE. (Step brother of philadelphia( which is the step child of NYC) ). | e2q7x07 | e2qsgyq | 1,532,099,500 | 1,532,116,647 | 2 | 3 | I'd suggest doing some research on your local ordinances, or the ordinances for the area's you're thinking about operating in, to see how friendly they are to tiny homes. Tiny homes generally don't require an Architect, and more often than not classify as a camper if on a trailer with wheels. Check with your local AIA for Architects. I'm sure there are tiny home enthusiast communities that could also help you learn about them. | Have you looked at what your competition is doing? Dwell - 12 Tiny House Companies That Can Make Your Micro-Living Dreams Come True I'd start there, and look for an architect that has the design and marketing savy to help you separate from the pack. The architect should be familiar with the locales where you plan to build and fabricate these units, but the Architect could actually be located anywhere. The work of many architectural practices crosses borders. | 0 | 17,147 | 1.5 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx4olo | hjx46yd | 1,636,452,997 | 1,636,452,550 | 99 | 89 | Modernism is 100 years old. Contemporary buildings are not “modern”. We’ve moved on along with urban planners. Check out post-modernism or critical regionalism for schools of thought that came next. Search “contemporary architecture”. Projects built today may not be established enough to have a style sssigned to them. I would go so far to say any “modern” building constructed now is being built in a traditional style. | Architecture has a relationship with technology. The current state of modern technology is much more efficient at constructing modern architectural designs than other styles. As technology evolves, we may be quickly achieving building/cost efficiencies for any type of design. Robotic enhancements producing hand crafted French gothic stained glass windows may be competitive with prefab curtains of glass. | 1 | 447 | 1.11236 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx8xic | hjx52rj | 1,636,456,573 | 1,636,453,340 | 25 | 10 | Is it? I haven’t seen a major modernist building designed in the past two-three decades. The pedagogy of architecture is relatively contemporary - it was developed and practiced over the last 70 years more or less, although technology has changed it dramatically over the last 40. If you think architecture schools are too blame for you not seeing classical (and what do you mean older styles? Like Neolithic architecture?) built projects, let me introduce you to investors and money…. | Because the foundational texts, design methodology, canon, and pedagogy are largely unchanged from when Modernism became the de-facto architectural mode for teaching architecture in the academies. | 1 | 3,233 | 2.5 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx8xic | hjx6ovc | 1,636,456,573 | 1,636,454,727 | 25 | 6 | Is it? I haven’t seen a major modernist building designed in the past two-three decades. The pedagogy of architecture is relatively contemporary - it was developed and practiced over the last 70 years more or less, although technology has changed it dramatically over the last 40. If you think architecture schools are too blame for you not seeing classical (and what do you mean older styles? Like Neolithic architecture?) built projects, let me introduce you to investors and money…. | Mostly money, also there are many subcategories of "modern". Also what do you expect the architects to do? Pull a new style out of their asses? | 1 | 1,846 | 4.166667 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx9nki | hjx52rj | 1,636,457,131 | 1,636,453,340 | 25 | 10 | Two response here seem to point to a rational explanation for much of the continued push for Modernism **Its what is being taught** **It is what technology and materials are readily available, and thus cost effective to produce.** I would like to add that (at least in America) many who study architecture come from suburban upbringings. This has limited their exposure to live face-to-face architecture of other design possibilities, esp original historic architecture, before the colonization of the Americas. Being raised in a landscape of mostly quick off the shelf architecture fills the brain and provides one with a very limited pallet of what else is possible. Yes the internet does provide some exposure to the other, but like a recordings of music, it is not the same as being there live. who study architecture come from suburban upbringings. This has limited their exposure to live face-to-face architecture from the past, esp original historic architecture, before the colonization of the Americas. Being raised in a landscape of mostly quick off the shelf architecture fills the brain and provides one with a very limited pallet of what else is possible. Yes the internet does provide some exposure to the other, but like a recordings of music, it is not the same as being there live. | Because the foundational texts, design methodology, canon, and pedagogy are largely unchanged from when Modernism became the de-facto architectural mode for teaching architecture in the academies. | 1 | 3,791 | 2.5 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx6ovc | hjx9nki | 1,636,454,727 | 1,636,457,131 | 6 | 25 | Mostly money, also there are many subcategories of "modern". Also what do you expect the architects to do? Pull a new style out of their asses? | Two response here seem to point to a rational explanation for much of the continued push for Modernism **Its what is being taught** **It is what technology and materials are readily available, and thus cost effective to produce.** I would like to add that (at least in America) many who study architecture come from suburban upbringings. This has limited their exposure to live face-to-face architecture of other design possibilities, esp original historic architecture, before the colonization of the Americas. Being raised in a landscape of mostly quick off the shelf architecture fills the brain and provides one with a very limited pallet of what else is possible. Yes the internet does provide some exposure to the other, but like a recordings of music, it is not the same as being there live. who study architecture come from suburban upbringings. This has limited their exposure to live face-to-face architecture from the past, esp original historic architecture, before the colonization of the Americas. Being raised in a landscape of mostly quick off the shelf architecture fills the brain and provides one with a very limited pallet of what else is possible. Yes the internet does provide some exposure to the other, but like a recordings of music, it is not the same as being there live. | 0 | 2,404 | 4.166667 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxgkjx | hjxqjgy | 1,636,461,746 | 1,636,467,014 | 13 | 14 | Urban planning hasn’t moved on from modernism. Urban planning education though focuses on what is actually proven to work to make good urban spaces for people, and principally among these as far as it applies to architecture are enclosure, texture, and diversity. It’s just easier for urban planners to approve of classical and revivalist styles because they achieve enclosure (avoiding the object in a field) and texture and diversity (by just slapping on different types of ornamentation) more often than bad modernist or post-modernist projects do. The good challenge is to make good urban spaces while not being limited to arbitrary classical forms | Architecture has gone past modernism since at least the 70s... right now the vast majority of production is not modernist in the strict sense, but rather iterations of the architects/office's predominant style (for the top dogs) or instead examples of local contemporary vernacular (dutch style, nordic housing, swiss school, etc. etc.) Plus High-Tech never really left the scene but morphed into weak styles dependant on technological systems and products. | 0 | 5,268 | 1.076923 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxgkjx | hjx52rj | 1,636,461,746 | 1,636,453,340 | 13 | 10 | Urban planning hasn’t moved on from modernism. Urban planning education though focuses on what is actually proven to work to make good urban spaces for people, and principally among these as far as it applies to architecture are enclosure, texture, and diversity. It’s just easier for urban planners to approve of classical and revivalist styles because they achieve enclosure (avoiding the object in a field) and texture and diversity (by just slapping on different types of ornamentation) more often than bad modernist or post-modernist projects do. The good challenge is to make good urban spaces while not being limited to arbitrary classical forms | Because the foundational texts, design methodology, canon, and pedagogy are largely unchanged from when Modernism became the de-facto architectural mode for teaching architecture in the academies. | 1 | 8,406 | 1.3 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxgkjx | hjxezf0 | 1,636,461,746 | 1,636,460,796 | 13 | 9 | Urban planning hasn’t moved on from modernism. Urban planning education though focuses on what is actually proven to work to make good urban spaces for people, and principally among these as far as it applies to architecture are enclosure, texture, and diversity. It’s just easier for urban planners to approve of classical and revivalist styles because they achieve enclosure (avoiding the object in a field) and texture and diversity (by just slapping on different types of ornamentation) more often than bad modernist or post-modernist projects do. The good challenge is to make good urban spaces while not being limited to arbitrary classical forms | Where I'm learning, we don't favour one style over another. Just the concept and how well the design suits the context. We did learn a lot of styles in our theory classes. But in practice idk if modernism is still around. I learnt about modernist and I don't like it. The base idea of modernism is to minimalise every form like asking the question "is this needed for the space to function?" and thus, a lot of aesthetics are lost that way. Too much bland and nothing that stimulates the eyes. Especially the ones that are high rise buildings. | 1 | 950 | 1.444444 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx6ovc | hjxgkjx | 1,636,454,727 | 1,636,461,746 | 6 | 13 | Mostly money, also there are many subcategories of "modern". Also what do you expect the architects to do? Pull a new style out of their asses? | Urban planning hasn’t moved on from modernism. Urban planning education though focuses on what is actually proven to work to make good urban spaces for people, and principally among these as far as it applies to architecture are enclosure, texture, and diversity. It’s just easier for urban planners to approve of classical and revivalist styles because they achieve enclosure (avoiding the object in a field) and texture and diversity (by just slapping on different types of ornamentation) more often than bad modernist or post-modernist projects do. The good challenge is to make good urban spaces while not being limited to arbitrary classical forms | 0 | 7,019 | 2.166667 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxqjgy | hjxpenn | 1,636,467,014 | 1,636,466,464 | 14 | 12 | Architecture has gone past modernism since at least the 70s... right now the vast majority of production is not modernist in the strict sense, but rather iterations of the architects/office's predominant style (for the top dogs) or instead examples of local contemporary vernacular (dutch style, nordic housing, swiss school, etc. etc.) Plus High-Tech never really left the scene but morphed into weak styles dependant on technological systems and products. | Ummmmm Parametric, Biomorphic, Parabolic, Post Modernism, etc... | 1 | 550 | 1.166667 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxqjgy | hjx52rj | 1,636,467,014 | 1,636,453,340 | 14 | 10 | Architecture has gone past modernism since at least the 70s... right now the vast majority of production is not modernist in the strict sense, but rather iterations of the architects/office's predominant style (for the top dogs) or instead examples of local contemporary vernacular (dutch style, nordic housing, swiss school, etc. etc.) Plus High-Tech never really left the scene but morphed into weak styles dependant on technological systems and products. | Because the foundational texts, design methodology, canon, and pedagogy are largely unchanged from when Modernism became the de-facto architectural mode for teaching architecture in the academies. | 1 | 13,674 | 1.4 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxezf0 | hjxqjgy | 1,636,460,796 | 1,636,467,014 | 9 | 14 | Where I'm learning, we don't favour one style over another. Just the concept and how well the design suits the context. We did learn a lot of styles in our theory classes. But in practice idk if modernism is still around. I learnt about modernist and I don't like it. The base idea of modernism is to minimalise every form like asking the question "is this needed for the space to function?" and thus, a lot of aesthetics are lost that way. Too much bland and nothing that stimulates the eyes. Especially the ones that are high rise buildings. | Architecture has gone past modernism since at least the 70s... right now the vast majority of production is not modernist in the strict sense, but rather iterations of the architects/office's predominant style (for the top dogs) or instead examples of local contemporary vernacular (dutch style, nordic housing, swiss school, etc. etc.) Plus High-Tech never really left the scene but morphed into weak styles dependant on technological systems and products. | 0 | 6,218 | 1.555556 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx6ovc | hjxqjgy | 1,636,454,727 | 1,636,467,014 | 6 | 14 | Mostly money, also there are many subcategories of "modern". Also what do you expect the architects to do? Pull a new style out of their asses? | Architecture has gone past modernism since at least the 70s... right now the vast majority of production is not modernist in the strict sense, but rather iterations of the architects/office's predominant style (for the top dogs) or instead examples of local contemporary vernacular (dutch style, nordic housing, swiss school, etc. etc.) Plus High-Tech never really left the scene but morphed into weak styles dependant on technological systems and products. | 0 | 12,287 | 2.333333 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxkvke | hjxqjgy | 1,636,464,155 | 1,636,467,014 | 8 | 14 | Garden cities are historical relics not new. | Architecture has gone past modernism since at least the 70s... right now the vast majority of production is not modernist in the strict sense, but rather iterations of the architects/office's predominant style (for the top dogs) or instead examples of local contemporary vernacular (dutch style, nordic housing, swiss school, etc. etc.) Plus High-Tech never really left the scene but morphed into weak styles dependant on technological systems and products. | 0 | 2,859 | 1.75 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx52rj | hjxpenn | 1,636,453,340 | 1,636,466,464 | 10 | 12 | Because the foundational texts, design methodology, canon, and pedagogy are largely unchanged from when Modernism became the de-facto architectural mode for teaching architecture in the academies. | Ummmmm Parametric, Biomorphic, Parabolic, Post Modernism, etc... | 0 | 13,124 | 1.2 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxpenn | hjxezf0 | 1,636,466,464 | 1,636,460,796 | 12 | 9 | Ummmmm Parametric, Biomorphic, Parabolic, Post Modernism, etc... | Where I'm learning, we don't favour one style over another. Just the concept and how well the design suits the context. We did learn a lot of styles in our theory classes. But in practice idk if modernism is still around. I learnt about modernist and I don't like it. The base idea of modernism is to minimalise every form like asking the question "is this needed for the space to function?" and thus, a lot of aesthetics are lost that way. Too much bland and nothing that stimulates the eyes. Especially the ones that are high rise buildings. | 1 | 5,668 | 1.333333 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxpenn | hjx6ovc | 1,636,466,464 | 1,636,454,727 | 12 | 6 | Ummmmm Parametric, Biomorphic, Parabolic, Post Modernism, etc... | Mostly money, also there are many subcategories of "modern". Also what do you expect the architects to do? Pull a new style out of their asses? | 1 | 11,737 | 2 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxkvke | hjxpenn | 1,636,464,155 | 1,636,466,464 | 8 | 12 | Garden cities are historical relics not new. | Ummmmm Parametric, Biomorphic, Parabolic, Post Modernism, etc... | 0 | 2,309 | 1.5 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx52rj | hjxtjhv | 1,636,453,340 | 1,636,468,420 | 10 | 12 | Because the foundational texts, design methodology, canon, and pedagogy are largely unchanged from when Modernism became the de-facto architectural mode for teaching architecture in the academies. | A couple of things, but please keep in mind that this a kind of broad sketch, entire dissertations could be/have been written on the topic: "Modernism" in planning and in architecture isn't one thing, but a collection of ways of designing. The garden city model, for instance, can be seen (and I would argue is) a type of modernist planning, that influenced an entire generation of planners who implemented and advocated for garden cities built with what are colloquially called modernist buildings. The original Garden Cities were wrapped in a skin of arts and crafts (which can be considered a type of proto-modernism) and historicist styles (though not usually classical or Beaux Arts); however, this might be attributed the to lagging development of modernism in architecture, rather than a statement about the necessary relationship between Howard's garden city model and what we usually think of as "modern" architecture. In fact, during the 1910s and 1920s, early modernist architects looked to planning as more advanced than architecture, arguing that architecture should follow the field of planning. What I think your profs were negative about was a particular type of modernist planning associated with super-blocks, and perhaps the strict separation of functions, "rationally" organized in a grand fashion. They might also be talking about the New Town model which was prominent across Europe (and a bit in other places, most notably in Japan). The New Town model creates pedestrianized central business/community districts, and residential development surrounding it. This, in many ways, is from the lineage of the Garden City model, with modifications. The New Towns were often defined by their mid-century modern aesthetics, as were many "super-block" developments, leading to an association between the two. Others have pointed out that architecture did have a return to "traditional" and "historical" styles during the height of post-modernism, associated with New Urbanism. Lessons were learned, including from critique within "modernism" and ideas like mixed-use buildings are firmly built into contemporary architecture, regardless of what it looks like. As to education, the shift away from a Bauhaus/GSD model of teaching architecture began shortly after the war, right at the height of its influence in the late 1940s/1950s. These programs attempted to push back against what were considered the excesses/shortcomings of what was deemed the International Style, favoring the incorporation of lessons from historic architecture, and the human scale, while maintaining what we now might call a modern aesthetic. The focus was also on the organization of space, as it related to the use and context of the building rather than the way it looked. Again, this is a broad sketch, but I hope this helps clarifies a few things. edit: I wrote this quickly, so there may be some grammatical errors | 0 | 15,080 | 1.2 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxtjhv | hjxezf0 | 1,636,468,420 | 1,636,460,796 | 12 | 9 | A couple of things, but please keep in mind that this a kind of broad sketch, entire dissertations could be/have been written on the topic: "Modernism" in planning and in architecture isn't one thing, but a collection of ways of designing. The garden city model, for instance, can be seen (and I would argue is) a type of modernist planning, that influenced an entire generation of planners who implemented and advocated for garden cities built with what are colloquially called modernist buildings. The original Garden Cities were wrapped in a skin of arts and crafts (which can be considered a type of proto-modernism) and historicist styles (though not usually classical or Beaux Arts); however, this might be attributed the to lagging development of modernism in architecture, rather than a statement about the necessary relationship between Howard's garden city model and what we usually think of as "modern" architecture. In fact, during the 1910s and 1920s, early modernist architects looked to planning as more advanced than architecture, arguing that architecture should follow the field of planning. What I think your profs were negative about was a particular type of modernist planning associated with super-blocks, and perhaps the strict separation of functions, "rationally" organized in a grand fashion. They might also be talking about the New Town model which was prominent across Europe (and a bit in other places, most notably in Japan). The New Town model creates pedestrianized central business/community districts, and residential development surrounding it. This, in many ways, is from the lineage of the Garden City model, with modifications. The New Towns were often defined by their mid-century modern aesthetics, as were many "super-block" developments, leading to an association between the two. Others have pointed out that architecture did have a return to "traditional" and "historical" styles during the height of post-modernism, associated with New Urbanism. Lessons were learned, including from critique within "modernism" and ideas like mixed-use buildings are firmly built into contemporary architecture, regardless of what it looks like. As to education, the shift away from a Bauhaus/GSD model of teaching architecture began shortly after the war, right at the height of its influence in the late 1940s/1950s. These programs attempted to push back against what were considered the excesses/shortcomings of what was deemed the International Style, favoring the incorporation of lessons from historic architecture, and the human scale, while maintaining what we now might call a modern aesthetic. The focus was also on the organization of space, as it related to the use and context of the building rather than the way it looked. Again, this is a broad sketch, but I hope this helps clarifies a few things. edit: I wrote this quickly, so there may be some grammatical errors | Where I'm learning, we don't favour one style over another. Just the concept and how well the design suits the context. We did learn a lot of styles in our theory classes. But in practice idk if modernism is still around. I learnt about modernist and I don't like it. The base idea of modernism is to minimalise every form like asking the question "is this needed for the space to function?" and thus, a lot of aesthetics are lost that way. Too much bland and nothing that stimulates the eyes. Especially the ones that are high rise buildings. | 1 | 7,624 | 1.333333 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx6ovc | hjxtjhv | 1,636,454,727 | 1,636,468,420 | 6 | 12 | Mostly money, also there are many subcategories of "modern". Also what do you expect the architects to do? Pull a new style out of their asses? | A couple of things, but please keep in mind that this a kind of broad sketch, entire dissertations could be/have been written on the topic: "Modernism" in planning and in architecture isn't one thing, but a collection of ways of designing. The garden city model, for instance, can be seen (and I would argue is) a type of modernist planning, that influenced an entire generation of planners who implemented and advocated for garden cities built with what are colloquially called modernist buildings. The original Garden Cities were wrapped in a skin of arts and crafts (which can be considered a type of proto-modernism) and historicist styles (though not usually classical or Beaux Arts); however, this might be attributed the to lagging development of modernism in architecture, rather than a statement about the necessary relationship between Howard's garden city model and what we usually think of as "modern" architecture. In fact, during the 1910s and 1920s, early modernist architects looked to planning as more advanced than architecture, arguing that architecture should follow the field of planning. What I think your profs were negative about was a particular type of modernist planning associated with super-blocks, and perhaps the strict separation of functions, "rationally" organized in a grand fashion. They might also be talking about the New Town model which was prominent across Europe (and a bit in other places, most notably in Japan). The New Town model creates pedestrianized central business/community districts, and residential development surrounding it. This, in many ways, is from the lineage of the Garden City model, with modifications. The New Towns were often defined by their mid-century modern aesthetics, as were many "super-block" developments, leading to an association between the two. Others have pointed out that architecture did have a return to "traditional" and "historical" styles during the height of post-modernism, associated with New Urbanism. Lessons were learned, including from critique within "modernism" and ideas like mixed-use buildings are firmly built into contemporary architecture, regardless of what it looks like. As to education, the shift away from a Bauhaus/GSD model of teaching architecture began shortly after the war, right at the height of its influence in the late 1940s/1950s. These programs attempted to push back against what were considered the excesses/shortcomings of what was deemed the International Style, favoring the incorporation of lessons from historic architecture, and the human scale, while maintaining what we now might call a modern aesthetic. The focus was also on the organization of space, as it related to the use and context of the building rather than the way it looked. Again, this is a broad sketch, but I hope this helps clarifies a few things. edit: I wrote this quickly, so there may be some grammatical errors | 0 | 13,693 | 2 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxtjhv | hjxkvke | 1,636,468,420 | 1,636,464,155 | 12 | 8 | A couple of things, but please keep in mind that this a kind of broad sketch, entire dissertations could be/have been written on the topic: "Modernism" in planning and in architecture isn't one thing, but a collection of ways of designing. The garden city model, for instance, can be seen (and I would argue is) a type of modernist planning, that influenced an entire generation of planners who implemented and advocated for garden cities built with what are colloquially called modernist buildings. The original Garden Cities were wrapped in a skin of arts and crafts (which can be considered a type of proto-modernism) and historicist styles (though not usually classical or Beaux Arts); however, this might be attributed the to lagging development of modernism in architecture, rather than a statement about the necessary relationship between Howard's garden city model and what we usually think of as "modern" architecture. In fact, during the 1910s and 1920s, early modernist architects looked to planning as more advanced than architecture, arguing that architecture should follow the field of planning. What I think your profs were negative about was a particular type of modernist planning associated with super-blocks, and perhaps the strict separation of functions, "rationally" organized in a grand fashion. They might also be talking about the New Town model which was prominent across Europe (and a bit in other places, most notably in Japan). The New Town model creates pedestrianized central business/community districts, and residential development surrounding it. This, in many ways, is from the lineage of the Garden City model, with modifications. The New Towns were often defined by their mid-century modern aesthetics, as were many "super-block" developments, leading to an association between the two. Others have pointed out that architecture did have a return to "traditional" and "historical" styles during the height of post-modernism, associated with New Urbanism. Lessons were learned, including from critique within "modernism" and ideas like mixed-use buildings are firmly built into contemporary architecture, regardless of what it looks like. As to education, the shift away from a Bauhaus/GSD model of teaching architecture began shortly after the war, right at the height of its influence in the late 1940s/1950s. These programs attempted to push back against what were considered the excesses/shortcomings of what was deemed the International Style, favoring the incorporation of lessons from historic architecture, and the human scale, while maintaining what we now might call a modern aesthetic. The focus was also on the organization of space, as it related to the use and context of the building rather than the way it looked. Again, this is a broad sketch, but I hope this helps clarifies a few things. edit: I wrote this quickly, so there may be some grammatical errors | Garden cities are historical relics not new. | 1 | 4,265 | 1.5 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx6ovc | hjxxwta | 1,636,454,727 | 1,636,470,352 | 6 | 8 | Mostly money, also there are many subcategories of "modern". Also what do you expect the architects to do? Pull a new style out of their asses? | So just to point out, there are people doing classical styles. New classicism has been a thing for a while, and there are revivals here and there of other older styles. I think you don't see it being emphasized in schools for a couple of reasons: * First and foremost, the projects with the biggest budgets are going to want an eye catching style that does something new. Both the client and the architect want to win awards, accolades, magazine covers, etc. and the way you get there is by doing something new. Neo-futurism is the style currently en vogue at the top levels of design, but you still see some deconstructivist and postmodern designs as well. These are styles that are currently pushing the boundaries of building design, so they receive the most fanfare. Classical styles are seen as less exciting because there isn't much ground left to cover there. * Number 2 is that more classical styles are very difficult and expensive to pull off and not look cheap. To do it right, you need a large number of skilled tradesmen in various crafts like masonry, woodcarving, painting and stenciling, etc. This is why building renovation can get quite expensive, the trades to recreate the features in older buildings are not common and often require hiring specialists from out of town. It adds up quick the more faithful to these styles you want to get. Do it on the cheap and your attempt at a modern beaux arts museum or school ends up looking like an upscale suburban strip mall. And even if you do a magnificent job, it will likely go overlooked because of that first one. People are used to seeing these older styles, they're aesthetically pleasing but not unexpected. So large dollar projects end up being contemporary styles trying new things, smaller dollar projects will be less daring contemporary styles due to the cost required. I think the real takeaway here is that we should value the old buildings already standing because they are very often irreplaceable, while also appreciating the new styles for pushing boundaries and trying to take buildings in directions they've never gone before. | 0 | 15,625 | 1.333333 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx6ovc | hjxezf0 | 1,636,454,727 | 1,636,460,796 | 6 | 9 | Mostly money, also there are many subcategories of "modern". Also what do you expect the architects to do? Pull a new style out of their asses? | Where I'm learning, we don't favour one style over another. Just the concept and how well the design suits the context. We did learn a lot of styles in our theory classes. But in practice idk if modernism is still around. I learnt about modernist and I don't like it. The base idea of modernism is to minimalise every form like asking the question "is this needed for the space to function?" and thus, a lot of aesthetics are lost that way. Too much bland and nothing that stimulates the eyes. Especially the ones that are high rise buildings. | 0 | 6,069 | 1.5 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjx6ovc | hjxkvke | 1,636,454,727 | 1,636,464,155 | 6 | 8 | Mostly money, also there are many subcategories of "modern". Also what do you expect the architects to do? Pull a new style out of their asses? | Garden cities are historical relics not new. | 0 | 9,428 | 1.333333 | ||
qq0636 | architecture_train | 0.94 | Why is architecture "stuck" on modernism when urban planning and other fields have moved on? I started to study urban planning this year and was quite surprised at how negative my professors were towards modernism. One of our first assignments was to design a garden city. Looking into it I found that this seems to be quite common in the field of urban planning. The impression I have gotten is that Architecture schools are the opposite, favoring modernist architecture over classical or older styles. Why do you think there is such a difference? | hjxx76q | hjx6ovc | 1,636,470,042 | 1,636,454,727 | 8 | 6 | Most architecture schools do not profess one specific historical style - Notre Dame being a sort of exception and I’m sure there are a few others. The idea of choosing between classical orders and modernism kind of defeats the purpose of learning about either because they are from the past, already crystallized within their historical context. The goal of architecture school is innovation, utilizing methodologies to push the boundaries of architectural discourse, so a school that enforces the use of specific styles, whether modernist or classical, is doing a disservice to its students and to the built environment. | Mostly money, also there are many subcategories of "modern". Also what do you expect the architects to do? Pull a new style out of their asses? | 1 | 15,315 | 1.333333 | ||
wbjyha | architecture_train | 0.84 | What is going here? Are there no moderators here in r/architecture? There are less and less posts about actual architecture and more and more posts asking "what style is this?" (most of them clearly trolling) and posts of people moaning that they don't like "modern" architecture (usually they mix the concept of modern, post-modern and contemporary). Usually the latter, when confronted with facts that explain why they might be being unfavourable to certain types of architecture they don't accept it. It seems they come here just to validate their opinions. I might not like most post-modern architecture (for instance I really dislike Michael Graves's architecture) but I can understand that there is value and importance in it, and how it is a reaction to the faults in modern architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect building and I think that arguing that certain types of architecture are better just because you like them more, is not the way to have an healthy discussion on architecture and is just creating an hostile environment where certain things can't be discussed. Where are the mods? | ii75xxb | ii796nj | 1,659,140,659 | 1,659,142,191 | 8 | 16 | Would be funny if mods delete this | I've wondered this too. This sub is noticeably unmoderated. | 0 | 1,532 | 2 | ||
wbjyha | architecture_train | 0.84 | What is going here? Are there no moderators here in r/architecture? There are less and less posts about actual architecture and more and more posts asking "what style is this?" (most of them clearly trolling) and posts of people moaning that they don't like "modern" architecture (usually they mix the concept of modern, post-modern and contemporary). Usually the latter, when confronted with facts that explain why they might be being unfavourable to certain types of architecture they don't accept it. It seems they come here just to validate their opinions. I might not like most post-modern architecture (for instance I really dislike Michael Graves's architecture) but I can understand that there is value and importance in it, and how it is a reaction to the faults in modern architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect building and I think that arguing that certain types of architecture are better just because you like them more, is not the way to have an healthy discussion on architecture and is just creating an hostile environment where certain things can't be discussed. Where are the mods? | ii8a4h8 | ii85f26 | 1,659,163,001 | 1,659,159,584 | 4 | 1 | I’m relatively new to the sub so it’s been like this most of time that I’ve seen. Is it a recent phenomenon? The style ones make me roll eyes - I don’t even bother opening those. That ‘modern architecture’ thread - I just cba to engage anymore. I’m not sure if it needed moderating though - it wasn’t particularly offensive. You can always just not go back to it. What do you think the moderators role on this sub should be? Do you think they should take down the style ones? | There haven't every really been many posts about architecture here. Except for some intense: modern better traditional better debates once in a while. What are you hoping to see? This isn't an architecture web site. It is a regular web site with an architecture section. If that makes sense. | 1 | 3,417 | 4 | ||
wbjyha | architecture_train | 0.84 | What is going here? Are there no moderators here in r/architecture? There are less and less posts about actual architecture and more and more posts asking "what style is this?" (most of them clearly trolling) and posts of people moaning that they don't like "modern" architecture (usually they mix the concept of modern, post-modern and contemporary). Usually the latter, when confronted with facts that explain why they might be being unfavourable to certain types of architecture they don't accept it. It seems they come here just to validate their opinions. I might not like most post-modern architecture (for instance I really dislike Michael Graves's architecture) but I can understand that there is value and importance in it, and how it is a reaction to the faults in modern architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect building and I think that arguing that certain types of architecture are better just because you like them more, is not the way to have an healthy discussion on architecture and is just creating an hostile environment where certain things can't be discussed. Where are the mods? | ii8a4h8 | ii7by0k | 1,659,163,001 | 1,659,143,506 | 4 | 0 | I’m relatively new to the sub so it’s been like this most of time that I’ve seen. Is it a recent phenomenon? The style ones make me roll eyes - I don’t even bother opening those. That ‘modern architecture’ thread - I just cba to engage anymore. I’m not sure if it needed moderating though - it wasn’t particularly offensive. You can always just not go back to it. What do you think the moderators role on this sub should be? Do you think they should take down the style ones? | I mean it's annoying but it would be dumb for mods to just remove these things it's so supposed to be an accessible sub | 1 | 19,495 | 4,000 | ||
wbjyha | architecture_train | 0.84 | What is going here? Are there no moderators here in r/architecture? There are less and less posts about actual architecture and more and more posts asking "what style is this?" (most of them clearly trolling) and posts of people moaning that they don't like "modern" architecture (usually they mix the concept of modern, post-modern and contemporary). Usually the latter, when confronted with facts that explain why they might be being unfavourable to certain types of architecture they don't accept it. It seems they come here just to validate their opinions. I might not like most post-modern architecture (for instance I really dislike Michael Graves's architecture) but I can understand that there is value and importance in it, and how it is a reaction to the faults in modern architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect building and I think that arguing that certain types of architecture are better just because you like them more, is not the way to have an healthy discussion on architecture and is just creating an hostile environment where certain things can't be discussed. Where are the mods? | ii8a4h8 | ii7npwx | 1,659,163,001 | 1,659,149,248 | 4 | -3 | I’m relatively new to the sub so it’s been like this most of time that I’ve seen. Is it a recent phenomenon? The style ones make me roll eyes - I don’t even bother opening those. That ‘modern architecture’ thread - I just cba to engage anymore. I’m not sure if it needed moderating though - it wasn’t particularly offensive. You can always just not go back to it. What do you think the moderators role on this sub should be? Do you think they should take down the style ones? | My brudda, you see reaction and you react as well? Dominos pizza 🤦♂️ | 1 | 13,753 | -1.333333 | ||
wbjyha | architecture_train | 0.84 | What is going here? Are there no moderators here in r/architecture? There are less and less posts about actual architecture and more and more posts asking "what style is this?" (most of them clearly trolling) and posts of people moaning that they don't like "modern" architecture (usually they mix the concept of modern, post-modern and contemporary). Usually the latter, when confronted with facts that explain why they might be being unfavourable to certain types of architecture they don't accept it. It seems they come here just to validate their opinions. I might not like most post-modern architecture (for instance I really dislike Michael Graves's architecture) but I can understand that there is value and importance in it, and how it is a reaction to the faults in modern architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect building and I think that arguing that certain types of architecture are better just because you like them more, is not the way to have an healthy discussion on architecture and is just creating an hostile environment where certain things can't be discussed. Where are the mods? | iia5x22 | ii85f26 | 1,659,203,335 | 1,659,159,584 | 3 | 1 | I haven't seen as many as those posts as recently, and browsing the sub, it looks fine. Many images of cool architecture, some students asking about career stuff. I don't browse reddit by "new," though, so that might be it. I don't mind the "what style is this?" posts unless they're memes. Then again, I haven't seen many on my feed, like I said. Ironically, I have seen plenty of posts complaining about the "what style is this?" Maybe those should be removed, instead! /s | There haven't every really been many posts about architecture here. Except for some intense: modern better traditional better debates once in a while. What are you hoping to see? This isn't an architecture web site. It is a regular web site with an architecture section. If that makes sense. | 1 | 43,751 | 3 | ||
wbjyha | architecture_train | 0.84 | What is going here? Are there no moderators here in r/architecture? There are less and less posts about actual architecture and more and more posts asking "what style is this?" (most of them clearly trolling) and posts of people moaning that they don't like "modern" architecture (usually they mix the concept of modern, post-modern and contemporary). Usually the latter, when confronted with facts that explain why they might be being unfavourable to certain types of architecture they don't accept it. It seems they come here just to validate their opinions. I might not like most post-modern architecture (for instance I really dislike Michael Graves's architecture) but I can understand that there is value and importance in it, and how it is a reaction to the faults in modern architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect building and I think that arguing that certain types of architecture are better just because you like them more, is not the way to have an healthy discussion on architecture and is just creating an hostile environment where certain things can't be discussed. Where are the mods? | iia5x22 | ii7by0k | 1,659,203,335 | 1,659,143,506 | 3 | 0 | I haven't seen as many as those posts as recently, and browsing the sub, it looks fine. Many images of cool architecture, some students asking about career stuff. I don't browse reddit by "new," though, so that might be it. I don't mind the "what style is this?" posts unless they're memes. Then again, I haven't seen many on my feed, like I said. Ironically, I have seen plenty of posts complaining about the "what style is this?" Maybe those should be removed, instead! /s | I mean it's annoying but it would be dumb for mods to just remove these things it's so supposed to be an accessible sub | 1 | 59,829 | 3,000 | ||
wbjyha | architecture_train | 0.84 | What is going here? Are there no moderators here in r/architecture? There are less and less posts about actual architecture and more and more posts asking "what style is this?" (most of them clearly trolling) and posts of people moaning that they don't like "modern" architecture (usually they mix the concept of modern, post-modern and contemporary). Usually the latter, when confronted with facts that explain why they might be being unfavourable to certain types of architecture they don't accept it. It seems they come here just to validate their opinions. I might not like most post-modern architecture (for instance I really dislike Michael Graves's architecture) but I can understand that there is value and importance in it, and how it is a reaction to the faults in modern architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect building and I think that arguing that certain types of architecture are better just because you like them more, is not the way to have an healthy discussion on architecture and is just creating an hostile environment where certain things can't be discussed. Where are the mods? | iia5x22 | ii7npwx | 1,659,203,335 | 1,659,149,248 | 3 | -3 | I haven't seen as many as those posts as recently, and browsing the sub, it looks fine. Many images of cool architecture, some students asking about career stuff. I don't browse reddit by "new," though, so that might be it. I don't mind the "what style is this?" posts unless they're memes. Then again, I haven't seen many on my feed, like I said. Ironically, I have seen plenty of posts complaining about the "what style is this?" Maybe those should be removed, instead! /s | My brudda, you see reaction and you react as well? Dominos pizza 🤦♂️ | 1 | 54,087 | -1 | ||
wbjyha | architecture_train | 0.84 | What is going here? Are there no moderators here in r/architecture? There are less and less posts about actual architecture and more and more posts asking "what style is this?" (most of them clearly trolling) and posts of people moaning that they don't like "modern" architecture (usually they mix the concept of modern, post-modern and contemporary). Usually the latter, when confronted with facts that explain why they might be being unfavourable to certain types of architecture they don't accept it. It seems they come here just to validate their opinions. I might not like most post-modern architecture (for instance I really dislike Michael Graves's architecture) but I can understand that there is value and importance in it, and how it is a reaction to the faults in modern architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect building and I think that arguing that certain types of architecture are better just because you like them more, is not the way to have an healthy discussion on architecture and is just creating an hostile environment where certain things can't be discussed. Where are the mods? | ii7by0k | ii85f26 | 1,659,143,506 | 1,659,159,584 | 0 | 1 | I mean it's annoying but it would be dumb for mods to just remove these things it's so supposed to be an accessible sub | There haven't every really been many posts about architecture here. Except for some intense: modern better traditional better debates once in a while. What are you hoping to see? This isn't an architecture web site. It is a regular web site with an architecture section. If that makes sense. | 0 | 16,078 | 1,000 | ||
wbjyha | architecture_train | 0.84 | What is going here? Are there no moderators here in r/architecture? There are less and less posts about actual architecture and more and more posts asking "what style is this?" (most of them clearly trolling) and posts of people moaning that they don't like "modern" architecture (usually they mix the concept of modern, post-modern and contemporary). Usually the latter, when confronted with facts that explain why they might be being unfavourable to certain types of architecture they don't accept it. It seems they come here just to validate their opinions. I might not like most post-modern architecture (for instance I really dislike Michael Graves's architecture) but I can understand that there is value and importance in it, and how it is a reaction to the faults in modern architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect building and I think that arguing that certain types of architecture are better just because you like them more, is not the way to have an healthy discussion on architecture and is just creating an hostile environment where certain things can't be discussed. Where are the mods? | ii7npwx | ii85f26 | 1,659,149,248 | 1,659,159,584 | -3 | 1 | My brudda, you see reaction and you react as well? Dominos pizza 🤦♂️ | There haven't every really been many posts about architecture here. Except for some intense: modern better traditional better debates once in a while. What are you hoping to see? This isn't an architecture web site. It is a regular web site with an architecture section. If that makes sense. | 0 | 10,336 | -0.333333 | ||
wbjyha | architecture_train | 0.84 | What is going here? Are there no moderators here in r/architecture? There are less and less posts about actual architecture and more and more posts asking "what style is this?" (most of them clearly trolling) and posts of people moaning that they don't like "modern" architecture (usually they mix the concept of modern, post-modern and contemporary). Usually the latter, when confronted with facts that explain why they might be being unfavourable to certain types of architecture they don't accept it. It seems they come here just to validate their opinions. I might not like most post-modern architecture (for instance I really dislike Michael Graves's architecture) but I can understand that there is value and importance in it, and how it is a reaction to the faults in modern architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect building and I think that arguing that certain types of architecture are better just because you like them more, is not the way to have an healthy discussion on architecture and is just creating an hostile environment where certain things can't be discussed. Where are the mods? | iiaga88 | ii7by0k | 1,659,207,809 | 1,659,143,506 | 1 | 0 | I don’t mind the style questions because I think they’re kinda funny. I also think it’s obvious that there’s no requirement that someone be an architect to post or reply and that there are a lot of architect and architecture curious people in this world. In terms of Reddit, it’s a lot better than many of the message boards I’ve followed. I mean…how could you make a rule that posts be “better”? | I mean it's annoying but it would be dumb for mods to just remove these things it's so supposed to be an accessible sub | 1 | 64,303 | 1,000 | ||
wbjyha | architecture_train | 0.84 | What is going here? Are there no moderators here in r/architecture? There are less and less posts about actual architecture and more and more posts asking "what style is this?" (most of them clearly trolling) and posts of people moaning that they don't like "modern" architecture (usually they mix the concept of modern, post-modern and contemporary). Usually the latter, when confronted with facts that explain why they might be being unfavourable to certain types of architecture they don't accept it. It seems they come here just to validate their opinions. I might not like most post-modern architecture (for instance I really dislike Michael Graves's architecture) but I can understand that there is value and importance in it, and how it is a reaction to the faults in modern architecture. There is no such thing as a perfect building and I think that arguing that certain types of architecture are better just because you like them more, is not the way to have an healthy discussion on architecture and is just creating an hostile environment where certain things can't be discussed. Where are the mods? | ii7npwx | iiaga88 | 1,659,149,248 | 1,659,207,809 | -3 | 1 | My brudda, you see reaction and you react as well? Dominos pizza 🤦♂️ | I don’t mind the style questions because I think they’re kinda funny. I also think it’s obvious that there’s no requirement that someone be an architect to post or reply and that there are a lot of architect and architecture curious people in this world. In terms of Reddit, it’s a lot better than many of the message boards I’ve followed. I mean…how could you make a rule that posts be “better”? | 0 | 58,561 | -0.333333 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e5u57yi | e5u5zbh | 1,536,750,350 | 1,536,751,556 | 0 | 5 | welcome to architecture | I remember a similar situation for me about 9 months out of school. One thing I realized I had gotten used to from school was the pace of change - each semester was a new project, a new challenge, but professionally, everything seemed to drag... It’s a reality that some days will be exciting, and you’ll get to do tasks you really enjoy, and others will be buried in submittals, fussy clients, or hand-holding a contractor. I greatly enjoy my work, even though I don’t enjoy every day of it. That’s fine. It may be worth speaking with your bosses about taking on more tasks that you enjoy, or taking on more responsibility. If something first can’t be changed at your office so you are satisfied at your job, then you may need to look elsewhere. I do caution, if you consider changing jobs, to talk with friends at other firms about their experiences and satisfaction. | 0 | 1,206 | 5,000 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e5u57yi | e5vi6al | 1,536,750,350 | 1,536,794,993 | 0 | 5 | welcome to architecture | Start designing your ideal buildings in your free time, and pretend that they're real. I do that on Sketchup. Once you get a nice rendering program, shit starts to look pretty realistic and it's nice to live in that fantasy. Then you can photoshop the building into a real-world location. It never hurts to build up a portfolio of cool stuff from your imagination. | 0 | 44,643 | 5,000 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e5vi6al | e5vh9b2 | 1,536,794,993 | 1,536,794,030 | 5 | 0 | Start designing your ideal buildings in your free time, and pretend that they're real. I do that on Sketchup. Once you get a nice rendering program, shit starts to look pretty realistic and it's nice to live in that fantasy. Then you can photoshop the building into a real-world location. It never hurts to build up a portfolio of cool stuff from your imagination. | Long bathroom breaks. /s | 1 | 963 | 5,000 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e5u57yi | e5u5hr6 | 1,536,750,350 | 1,536,750,799 | 0 | 5 | welcome to architecture | "Design and detailing" isn't everything and actually it's nice to get a break from it once in a while. You'll get used to it. You should have more responsibilities later on, if not, find a new job. | 0 | 449 | 5,000 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e5w6xz6 | e5u57yi | 1,536,825,837 | 1,536,750,350 | 4 | 0 | I like dealing with people. Communicating w contractors, clients, etc is kind of fun for me,... until I am rushed for drawings. | welcome to architecture | 1 | 75,487 | 4,000 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e5vh9b2 | e5w6xz6 | 1,536,794,030 | 1,536,825,837 | 0 | 4 | Long bathroom breaks. /s | I like dealing with people. Communicating w contractors, clients, etc is kind of fun for me,... until I am rushed for drawings. | 0 | 31,807 | 4,000 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e5u57yi | e60tbsc | 1,536,750,350 | 1,537,022,797 | 0 | 2 | welcome to architecture | 1 year in, oh no. Sounds like a long road ahead. I'm 11 years in and most of my positions have given me so much free time that I get bored and find another job for a raise. Now I work all day and it's not more rewarding. I'd say learn everything you can, be ambitious but give it another year, preferably 2 before you move on. Discuss your goals with your boss to communicate your ambition and concerns. | 0 | 272,447 | 2,000 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e60tbsc | e5vh9b2 | 1,537,022,797 | 1,536,794,030 | 2 | 0 | 1 year in, oh no. Sounds like a long road ahead. I'm 11 years in and most of my positions have given me so much free time that I get bored and find another job for a raise. Now I work all day and it's not more rewarding. I'd say learn everything you can, be ambitious but give it another year, preferably 2 before you move on. Discuss your goals with your boss to communicate your ambition and concerns. | Long bathroom breaks. /s | 1 | 228,767 | 2,000 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e61tmmr | e5u57yi | 1,537,059,161 | 1,536,750,350 | 2 | 0 | My sense of satisfaction honestly comes when I get to work, open Outlook and I don't have 30 emails from Owners and consultants whining for something from me. That means I'm doing my job. | welcome to architecture | 1 | 308,811 | 2,000 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e61tmmr | e5vh9b2 | 1,537,059,161 | 1,536,794,030 | 2 | 0 | My sense of satisfaction honestly comes when I get to work, open Outlook and I don't have 30 emails from Owners and consultants whining for something from me. That means I'm doing my job. | Long bathroom breaks. /s | 1 | 265,131 | 2,000 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e5u57yi | e62f7o5 | 1,536,750,350 | 1,537,091,669 | 0 | 2 | welcome to architecture | Take ownership of your work. Treat everything as if it were your office and these were your clients and you are the only architect that's going to complete this particular task. | 0 | 341,319 | 2,000 | ||
9f6lxa | architecture_train | 1 | [Ask] How do you get gratification in your day to day work? I've been an architectural designer for just over a year now and with the novelty of the first year wearing off I find myself losing my sense of satisfaction with my work at the end of the day. It's been rough recently due to the majority of the projects I'm a part of entering construction and becoming more and more paperwork and contentious client meetings and less and less design and detailing. How do you get through feeling like a paper pusher accomplishing nothing and feel like you're actually making a difference? | e5vh9b2 | e62f7o5 | 1,536,794,030 | 1,537,091,669 | 0 | 2 | Long bathroom breaks. /s | Take ownership of your work. Treat everything as if it were your office and these were your clients and you are the only architect that's going to complete this particular task. | 0 | 297,639 | 2,000 | ||
ridujh | architecture_train | 0.92 | Deciding if i should continue studying architecture.. I just started uni and i picked architecture. I chose it because it is the course that is kinda related to art. But im starting to realize that i have no passion for this. I can't do math and i enjoy illustration more tbh. Choosing art as a career is unrealistic for me. Im hoping that maybe ill learn to love architecture somehow. Is architecture worth it? | howetms | howdma9 | 1,639,735,215 | 1,639,734,281 | 26 | 12 | Architecture is not worth it if you can barely stand it at the beginning, it only gets worse 🤷🏼♀️ A degree in architecture doesn't guarantee a good career Something to consider would be graphic design, illustrator, maybe interior design as it's not as intense as full course of architecture, multimedia artist, there is a lot | Have you ever considered Graphic Design? You're going to be illustrating and you won't have to take up math related subjects. | 1 | 934 | 2.166667 | ||
ridujh | architecture_train | 0.92 | Deciding if i should continue studying architecture.. I just started uni and i picked architecture. I chose it because it is the course that is kinda related to art. But im starting to realize that i have no passion for this. I can't do math and i enjoy illustration more tbh. Choosing art as a career is unrealistic for me. Im hoping that maybe ill learn to love architecture somehow. Is architecture worth it? | howtisz | hoxlx3l | 1,639,745,157 | 1,639,757,661 | 3 | 5 | I only got the passion for outside project. School project feel like you talk lie about how they should create this or that. Not saying it's bad just the way I feel. | Don't invest your youth in anything that doesn't fulfill you. | 0 | 12,504 | 1.666667 | ||
ridujh | architecture_train | 0.92 | Deciding if i should continue studying architecture.. I just started uni and i picked architecture. I chose it because it is the course that is kinda related to art. But im starting to realize that i have no passion for this. I can't do math and i enjoy illustration more tbh. Choosing art as a career is unrealistic for me. Im hoping that maybe ill learn to love architecture somehow. Is architecture worth it? | hoy3byk | hp0y6n1 | 1,639,764,268 | 1,639,813,917 | 2 | 3 | Perks of working with the metric system. Barely use fractions at all :P | Bail ASAP. It only gets harder. Passion for the subject is the only thing that makes it bareable | 0 | 49,649 | 1.5 | ||
ridujh | architecture_train | 0.92 | Deciding if i should continue studying architecture.. I just started uni and i picked architecture. I chose it because it is the course that is kinda related to art. But im starting to realize that i have no passion for this. I can't do math and i enjoy illustration more tbh. Choosing art as a career is unrealistic for me. Im hoping that maybe ill learn to love architecture somehow. Is architecture worth it? | hoy5tdr | hp0y6n1 | 1,639,765,218 | 1,639,813,917 | 2 | 3 | Yeah don’t continue it. I know many illustrative savvy friends of mine who think architecture is a far more suitable career for them(mainly due to some stigma surrounding financials) and they quickly learn it’s not for them. Don’t waste ur talent and hard work towards visual art towards the technical aspects of architecture you’re gonna be restricted greatly. | Bail ASAP. It only gets harder. Passion for the subject is the only thing that makes it bareable | 0 | 48,699 | 1.5 | ||
ridujh | architecture_train | 0.92 | Deciding if i should continue studying architecture.. I just started uni and i picked architecture. I chose it because it is the course that is kinda related to art. But im starting to realize that i have no passion for this. I can't do math and i enjoy illustration more tbh. Choosing art as a career is unrealistic for me. Im hoping that maybe ill learn to love architecture somehow. Is architecture worth it? | hoy8ofd | hp0y6n1 | 1,639,766,342 | 1,639,813,917 | 1 | 3 | Hi there, What type of illustrations do you do? Do you draw by hand as well as using computer programs? If only the latter, what programs do you use? Do you enjoy using Photoshop, InDesign, Sketchup, for example? What type of projects have you done in Uni thus far? Have you ever drafted a drawing using a T-square or parallel bar? Do you ever look at house plans for fun? Are you a member of r/McMansionHell? I recommend you get exposed to good graphic designers like Michael Beirut of @Pentagram (they’re on Twitter). Also, follow @randydeutsch on Twitter for good info on AEC and Architecture. Check out @dinet, too. (Design Intelligence). Architecture is all about sustainability and preparing CDs using BIM & 3D modeling software like Revit, Archicad, etc. I look forward to your responses. Thank you, T. | Bail ASAP. It only gets harder. Passion for the subject is the only thing that makes it bareable | 0 | 47,575 | 3 | ||
ridujh | architecture_train | 0.92 | Deciding if i should continue studying architecture.. I just started uni and i picked architecture. I chose it because it is the course that is kinda related to art. But im starting to realize that i have no passion for this. I can't do math and i enjoy illustration more tbh. Choosing art as a career is unrealistic for me. Im hoping that maybe ill learn to love architecture somehow. Is architecture worth it? | hozp07d | hp0y6n1 | 1,639,788,022 | 1,639,813,917 | 1 | 3 | Architecture is not art. There’s too many starving artists clogging the pipeline with their anti-capitalist follies that nobody will build. We don’t need more art. We need buildings to put the art in. | Bail ASAP. It only gets harder. Passion for the subject is the only thing that makes it bareable | 0 | 25,895 | 3 | ||
c34sm9 | architecture_train | 0.86 | Can anyone tell me if this kind of architecture has a name? ask] Hey, I'm really not sure if this is the right subreddit to post on but maybe someone knows. [This is the building | eronw2n | erosi04 | 1,561,083,946 | 1,561,087,487 | 5 | 8 | Theodore is his name. Good chap. | it's a strange low quality mishmash of styles, no name for that. basically a generic functionalist modern tower with some awkward decorations. where is it? | 0 | 3,541 | 1.6 | ||
9bgr01 | architecture_train | 0.9 | [ask] How is it that large window panes used to be a luxury, but now people would rather pretend the mullions are there with fake plastic mullions? I can't tell if large window panes are just a sign of prestige but people actually prefer filtered light over an unobstructed view these days, or what exactly is going on. | e53006g | e52zlrf | 1,535,610,457 | 1,535,609,742 | 10 | 3 | A few aesthetic reasons for having muntins: 1). It gives an additional scale to the windows - a large window can sometimes be a bit too much, but having the muntins helps to relate it more to a human scale. 2). It can help to frame the views or heighten the experience of the exterior. Villa Savoye does this similarly at the top of the ramp by having a long narrow opening framing the view to the landscape as opposed to simply a guardrail and an ‘unobstructed’ view. 3). It can reinforce and enrich the proportional scheme in the building, and add more variation of scales being used. This is especially noticeable in historic buildings where traditional windows are replaced without divisions. True divided lite windows are still often made. Companies like Reilly, Artistic, Tischler, Zeluck make great windows. Simulated divided lite can also be done well if the proper spacer bar and muntin design is used. | There are less mullionaires? | 1 | 715 | 3.333333 | ||
dly482 | architecture_train | 1 | [ask] How artsy can I be as an architect? I am studying software engineering now and I hate it. I want a career that is creative and "artistic". I decided that I want to play with colors, lines, spaces and "design" something, especially 3d. So start to question myself about if Architecture is right career for me but I have some questions. How many creative liberty do architects have? Do you design your project own or collabrate? Do you decide everything (paint, shape of door, pattern of tiles) your own or you just "plan" the structure? I ask these questions because I want to make sure that architecture is sth I imagined. | f4v58l0 | f4vrler | 1,571,836,753 | 1,571,846,783 | 1 | 5 | I‘m studying architecture and i can‘t stress this enough: It‘s not (just) art! Architecture is design ergo form + function. While you learn to draw and create buildings or other objects creativly there is always going to be a focus on how they work why they work und what the result of this „work“ is. If you are only intresting in drawing or designing without being limited by technical issues this might not be for you.. | The field is not as artistic as you might think, yes while in school you have a lot of freedom in design, experiments. It is a far cry from how the real world of architecture operates. Even if you work for some of the famous firms, most firms will pigeon hole you into task. Similar to a production line. almost 90% of the interior is done by interior designers, with coordination with architect and especially client. Lot of the time client decides things that he might have been advised not to. Door shapes usually only come in rectangles??? custom doors are very expensive and most clients dont want that. Design is about 5-10% of total building, the rest involves revit, developing plans, details, elevations etc... things that will construct the building. If you want all that freedom you have to be on your own, and even then you are at mercy of the client. The only time artistic freedom exist is if your a big name architect. | 0 | 10,030 | 5 | ||
dly482 | architecture_train | 1 | [ask] How artsy can I be as an architect? I am studying software engineering now and I hate it. I want a career that is creative and "artistic". I decided that I want to play with colors, lines, spaces and "design" something, especially 3d. So start to question myself about if Architecture is right career for me but I have some questions. How many creative liberty do architects have? Do you design your project own or collabrate? Do you decide everything (paint, shape of door, pattern of tiles) your own or you just "plan" the structure? I ask these questions because I want to make sure that architecture is sth I imagined. | f4v58l0 | f4vv6rt | 1,571,836,753 | 1,571,848,289 | 1 | 3 | I‘m studying architecture and i can‘t stress this enough: It‘s not (just) art! Architecture is design ergo form + function. While you learn to draw and create buildings or other objects creativly there is always going to be a focus on how they work why they work und what the result of this „work“ is. If you are only intresting in drawing or designing without being limited by technical issues this might not be for you.. | Check out this comment I posted yesterday https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/dlk0ls/why_is_this_job_so_boring_ask/f4ra15p/ Should give you an idea. I'd be happy to dive into it further with you if you have more questions. | 0 | 11,536 | 3 | ||
dly482 | architecture_train | 1 | [ask] How artsy can I be as an architect? I am studying software engineering now and I hate it. I want a career that is creative and "artistic". I decided that I want to play with colors, lines, spaces and "design" something, especially 3d. So start to question myself about if Architecture is right career for me but I have some questions. How many creative liberty do architects have? Do you design your project own or collabrate? Do you decide everything (paint, shape of door, pattern of tiles) your own or you just "plan" the structure? I ask these questions because I want to make sure that architecture is sth I imagined. | f4vupwe | f4vv6rt | 1,571,848,088 | 1,571,848,289 | 1 | 3 | Design and Art are not the same thing just because art is always subjective and although you may like or dislike a design the parameters to evaluate them are objective, design is made to fulfill a purpose. | Check out this comment I posted yesterday https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/dlk0ls/why_is_this_job_so_boring_ask/f4ra15p/ Should give you an idea. I'd be happy to dive into it further with you if you have more questions. | 0 | 201 | 3 | ||
dly482 | architecture_train | 1 | [ask] How artsy can I be as an architect? I am studying software engineering now and I hate it. I want a career that is creative and "artistic". I decided that I want to play with colors, lines, spaces and "design" something, especially 3d. So start to question myself about if Architecture is right career for me but I have some questions. How many creative liberty do architects have? Do you design your project own or collabrate? Do you decide everything (paint, shape of door, pattern of tiles) your own or you just "plan" the structure? I ask these questions because I want to make sure that architecture is sth I imagined. | f4v58l0 | f4xe5e9 | 1,571,836,753 | 1,571,864,741 | 1 | 2 | I‘m studying architecture and i can‘t stress this enough: It‘s not (just) art! Architecture is design ergo form + function. While you learn to draw and create buildings or other objects creativly there is always going to be a focus on how they work why they work und what the result of this „work“ is. If you are only intresting in drawing or designing without being limited by technical issues this might not be for you.. | Well its one of the bigger parts.. A project usually goes: Design idea model Technical drawings Presentation You are unlimited in your creativity as long as it makes sense | 0 | 27,988 | 2 | ||
dly482 | architecture_train | 1 | [ask] How artsy can I be as an architect? I am studying software engineering now and I hate it. I want a career that is creative and "artistic". I decided that I want to play with colors, lines, spaces and "design" something, especially 3d. So start to question myself about if Architecture is right career for me but I have some questions. How many creative liberty do architects have? Do you design your project own or collabrate? Do you decide everything (paint, shape of door, pattern of tiles) your own or you just "plan" the structure? I ask these questions because I want to make sure that architecture is sth I imagined. | f4xe5e9 | f4vupwe | 1,571,864,741 | 1,571,848,088 | 2 | 1 | Well its one of the bigger parts.. A project usually goes: Design idea model Technical drawings Presentation You are unlimited in your creativity as long as it makes sense | Design and Art are not the same thing just because art is always subjective and although you may like or dislike a design the parameters to evaluate them are objective, design is made to fulfill a purpose. | 1 | 16,653 | 2 | ||
ki9asm | architecture_train | 0.91 | What kind of careers can I get into after finding that architecture is not for me? Do you know of anyone that has left the industry? What do they do now? I am seeking a change. Thanks! | ggq3ygi | ggq95e7 | 1,608,668,342 | 1,608,670,763 | 3 | 5 | Perhaps a government job? City planning and stuff like that should be possible with a degree as an architect. Source: Family Member has a degree in architecture (legally permitted to call themselves an architect) but hasn't worked as an architect in 30 years. Instead they worked in various government positions that required city planning, local rules on building etc | I mean, which part of it did you dislike and was there anything you did enjoy? If you're finding that it is a poor creative outlet, I might suggest graphic or web design. If you like the technical bits of modelling and the software, you may want to look into software design or programming. If you like talking about residential architecture but not really doing it, try real estate? If you like construction, have you considered working for a GC? I'll stop there, if you want to PM me feel free as well. I dropped out of architecture for a bit and learned that it wasn't the field I hated, just all the firms I had worked for were completely toxic. | 0 | 2,421 | 1.666667 | ||
ki9asm | architecture_train | 0.91 | What kind of careers can I get into after finding that architecture is not for me? Do you know of anyone that has left the industry? What do they do now? I am seeking a change. Thanks! | ggq7wt5 | ggq95e7 | 1,608,670,152 | 1,608,670,763 | 3 | 5 | Anything the requires drafting. Any kind of engineering shop. Anywhere that produces wood things like furniture, cabinets. Anything where they install inside a building, like sports furniture, sales environments. Also architectural training is really good for being an entrepreneur. You can analyze many factors, are open to self criticism and improving designs over iterations, can respect and deal with other trades & experts, & understand something about project management. | I mean, which part of it did you dislike and was there anything you did enjoy? If you're finding that it is a poor creative outlet, I might suggest graphic or web design. If you like the technical bits of modelling and the software, you may want to look into software design or programming. If you like talking about residential architecture but not really doing it, try real estate? If you like construction, have you considered working for a GC? I'll stop there, if you want to PM me feel free as well. I dropped out of architecture for a bit and learned that it wasn't the field I hated, just all the firms I had worked for were completely toxic. | 0 | 611 | 1.666667 | ||
ki9asm | architecture_train | 0.91 | What kind of careers can I get into after finding that architecture is not for me? Do you know of anyone that has left the industry? What do they do now? I am seeking a change. Thanks! | ggqr1fg | ggq3ygi | 1,608,679,840 | 1,608,668,342 | 5 | 3 | Several people I knew in school who didn't stick with architecture after graduation ended up in construction management. Another became a developer. The last one I can think of became an architectural product rep (basically sales). | Perhaps a government job? City planning and stuff like that should be possible with a degree as an architect. Source: Family Member has a degree in architecture (legally permitted to call themselves an architect) but hasn't worked as an architect in 30 years. Instead they worked in various government positions that required city planning, local rules on building etc | 1 | 11,498 | 1.666667 | ||
ki9asm | architecture_train | 0.91 | What kind of careers can I get into after finding that architecture is not for me? Do you know of anyone that has left the industry? What do they do now? I am seeking a change. Thanks! | ggq7wt5 | ggqr1fg | 1,608,670,152 | 1,608,679,840 | 3 | 5 | Anything the requires drafting. Any kind of engineering shop. Anywhere that produces wood things like furniture, cabinets. Anything where they install inside a building, like sports furniture, sales environments. Also architectural training is really good for being an entrepreneur. You can analyze many factors, are open to self criticism and improving designs over iterations, can respect and deal with other trades & experts, & understand something about project management. | Several people I knew in school who didn't stick with architecture after graduation ended up in construction management. Another became a developer. The last one I can think of became an architectural product rep (basically sales). | 0 | 9,688 | 1.666667 | ||
ki9asm | architecture_train | 0.91 | What kind of careers can I get into after finding that architecture is not for me? Do you know of anyone that has left the industry? What do they do now? I am seeking a change. Thanks! | ggqr1fg | ggqmn40 | 1,608,679,840 | 1,608,677,441 | 5 | 1 | Several people I knew in school who didn't stick with architecture after graduation ended up in construction management. Another became a developer. The last one I can think of became an architectural product rep (basically sales). | How about historic preservation? | 1 | 2,399 | 5 | ||
9o092f | architecture_train | 0.8 | [Ask] Need a realitycheck on my plan to switch careers Hello boys and girls of /r/architcture, as the title says, I am planning to switch careers and (eventually) study architecture. But before I set everything in motion, I felt it might be a good idea to manage expectations and get some insights from people who are already there. A bit of background info: mid-twenties, European (so going back to uni is not akin to committing financial suicide). Also: **tl;dr:** I want to do architecture. But first, I plan on doing an apprenticeship in carpentry. Eventually I want to focus on environmentally conscious building and wood. I also hope that I can be part architect and part craftsman (plan shit for 2-3 days and then be at the construction site the rest of the week) when I am done. --- My questions are: **Am I dreaming too big here or does my logic check out?** **Given self-discipline, dedication and hard work, is it realistic to expect things to turn out like that or similarly?** **Will there be opportunity to find meaningful work? For instance, furthering the cause of environmentally friendly buildings. Or going to remote, poor places and volunteer** **Am I putting the cart before the horse somewhere (perhaps going to uni first is a better approach?)** And here's what lead me to this plan: **Why I no longer want to do what I am doing** My line of work seems inane and I feel it doesn't give back to society. It allows me loads of freedom (self-employed) and independence. Even the opportunity to travel a lot. But again, I want to work in a field where I can contribute my fair share to society. Also, I feel like I don't want to sit in front of a screen all day. I'd love for my job to include a healthy bit of manual labour, too. I realize that architects usually don't do that sort of work, which is why I came up with the following plan: **Before going back to uni** Going back to uni right now - especially to study something as demanding as architecture - will definitely see me having to lower my standard of living. I want to avoid that. So I figured - and this ties in with my desire for manual labour - I would just start an apprenticeship as a carpenter first. When it comes to building things, I really want to focus on wood anyway. Plus, I look a bit like Jesus, so there's that. In all seriousness, my choice of craft is not that random - I did a lot of soul searching and it is indeed something I can see myself doing for more than a couple of months. And it has always been my desire to be able to build structures; to be handy, in a way. All in all, this is gonna take around 2 years. I realize I'll be well into my thirties by the time I then finish my Bachelor's in Architecture, let alone my Master's. **What I hope to gain from combining craft and academia** One of my hopes is that knowing how to handle the realities of building stuff will make me a more well-rounded architect than someone who never touched a hammer in their life. But far more importantly: I hope that this will open up the opportunity to find/create a job-situation where I spend part of my week coming up with ideas and being creative (plus of course all the mundane tasks an architect is in charge of) and the other part just exerting myself to make it happen. Lastly, I feel like having learned a craft is great insurance against not finding employment as an architect. --- Any help and input is appreciated! | e7qm6tr | e7qlq96 | 1,539,507,811 | 1,539,506,832 | 7 | 1 | OOOKAIIII, before i say anything, damn dude you made me rethink my reality and life again. This is my personal view, i mean no disrespect and i am not trying to be an asshat even if i sound like it. The following stems out of my personal experience and current understanding of the "job" and subsequent and tethered expertise required. I'll give you a small summary of who i am , and what i did, so you get how my view also generated. I am 27, architect, working in Dubai ( we get shit pay here so don't even think about coming here XD). Son of two civil engineers (literally was born on a damn construction site) so i've been seeing/hearing/and even tasting the industry since i was born. Graduated in 2015 so my experience is kinda limited in actuality. Worked for a years as a consultant, basically a CAD monkey, but that's expected from new grads. Moved to a main contractor, been working for almost two year as a design coordinator/manager on a renovation project. I've seen snippets of both sides of the job. Now for the meat of it: from what i understand from you, you are changing your life, and trust me, architects change stuff around. but it is not as rosey as you might think. You have to understand the differences in what you are aiming for because i think you have a small misconception of where you want to start. As a student, you have that idea, that when you graduate you are going to build society, change the city, and change the world, have your name on buildings, etc,... sadly this is not what will happen, as there are many factors to how you will proceed in your line of work. I've faced the following delimas when i graduated. I am more inclined into design, yet the current job market in the surrounding environment is more favorable towards construction. I would have loved to stay a CAD monkey until i graduate into a junior designer, then a senior, then a concept developer, and then and then and then. Sadly, i had to make the drastic shift and jump into a contractor. Why am i saying this ? because the skill set and knowledge required from me was 180 degrees different. In a consultant, especially when you are low level, you need to know software, you need to start your day on a screen and end it there. The details you put into the drawings, are either provided by your senior, or downloaded from a manufacturer's detail book then inserted into your file as is. The IRL knowledge of what is applicable is limited and frankly no one asks you about it. I've noticed this when i switched sides and worked Vs. a consultant ( designer ) on the contractor side. On a site, you need to build, so theory will not work, you need facts and applicable design. What ends up happening is that any consultant will contact specialists of the field they are working on, so they will contact glass people for glass design, timber specialist for doors, shutters, detailing, etc,.. and then generate a comprehensive design with the standard details ( or custom ). this will be issued to a contractor, at which i come in, and i bring my own specialists, but my specialists are the people who are actually gonna build the stuff in question. My job was accommodating the design of the consultant with what reality can produce. ( usually not a big difference because everyone works on standards, but sometimes there were problematic items). What i am trying to reach, is that my personal experience in the subject matter is not enough if it is specialized in one discipline. If i had timber expertise working as a contractor, it will not provide me enough knowledge to solve everything, and i will get specialist input anyway, as i will not be the one building it, or making it. After all, when construction is in progress, the liability of work falls on the person that manufactures it, so i can't force them to do something they can't (or don't want to do) to a certain degree. Thus, having your apprenticeship with a wood manufacturer would not be enough to give you ammunition to work at full capacity, it will be helpful, if you are overseeing wood works, and maybe if the built environment around you is mainly wood structures, at that point, yes it might be more beneficial that if it was in my case, still you need to know the rest, and that won't come from an apprenticeship, this will come from years of on site experience. I learned alot from the specialists, you learn how they solve problems, how they detail stuff, how to run around a problem and fix it. That what you learn. The other point i saw in your approach is Environmental design, and you linking it to wood. Environmental design revolves around a crap ton of items, building material is not the only one. I would suggest getting into LEED and taking the tests for it, you don't need to be an architect to apply for the first level, LEED GA, and that would actually give you a buttload of information on what it actually is about, there is a handbook on the USGBC website, that can help shed a light on it, its free, and a good old boring read XD As for the financial and time commitments, going back to uni at this point and specially into arch will be a decent commitment, this is the largest point you need to think about long and deep, the apprenticeship is something, and doing ARCH is something else. It is generally expensive to study Architecture, and extremely time consuming, i spent 5 years of overnighters. No joke. The expenses can be managed and trimmed, there are tricks you learn along the way for everything, and those tricks will save you money but imply more work, or skill depending on the situation. I've seen people work and study, but personally it was incredible for me to understand how in hell they found the time. It is doable, and on its own an achievement, so if you peruse that line of study+work i commend you. Don't forget the supplies, and a decent computer to work on, those are stealthy expenses. Masters is a different story, and i will give you the advise that i was given and i honestly can't find a better advise that i have ever been exposed to in my life, DO NOT THINK ABOUT THE MASTER WHEN YOU GRADUATE. WORK, SEE WHAT YOU LIKE, AND WHAT DIRECTION OF ARCHITECTURE YOU WANT TO CONTINUE IN, THEN SEE WHAT TYPE OF MASTERS WOULD BE SUITABLE. In 3 years i've changed my mind about what type of masters i want to go into around 8 times, and while working, i am also saving money for the masters, so its a win win. You don't wanna graduate with a bachelor, jump into a certain masters, and then realize that you fucked up in your choice, wasted time, money and effort into something you don't wanna continue in. to TL;DR it, think long and hard about what exactly you want to be. and which chair on the project table you want to be seated in, maybe if you choose to be a specialist all be it timber, glass, or whatever, you would be better off pushing towards that career, or being an architect as designer, or as a site architect, all are different paths, all respectable, all pay is equally shit XD This is what i can contribute as a personal opinion and my own experience man, i hope this helps, and genuinely don't think i am discouraging you about your choice, i fucking love architecture.And i want to do more with it. ​ | I can't provide any answers for your question, since I'm in a similar position as you (mid-20's, and looking to switch careers). I have the same motivations for wanting to switch to something like Architecture in the sense that you are capable of making tangible contributions to society - or at least get to think about your work in those terms. I am also working independently as a freelancer and also want to pursue something more substantial. So best of luck! I hope someone provides some answers. I know for some people, there are many deterrents (like the long hours, etc), so I also want to know what I'm getting myself into and not enter with any veil of idealism. ​ | 1 | 979 | 7 | ||
9o092f | architecture_train | 0.8 | [Ask] Need a realitycheck on my plan to switch careers Hello boys and girls of /r/architcture, as the title says, I am planning to switch careers and (eventually) study architecture. But before I set everything in motion, I felt it might be a good idea to manage expectations and get some insights from people who are already there. A bit of background info: mid-twenties, European (so going back to uni is not akin to committing financial suicide). Also: **tl;dr:** I want to do architecture. But first, I plan on doing an apprenticeship in carpentry. Eventually I want to focus on environmentally conscious building and wood. I also hope that I can be part architect and part craftsman (plan shit for 2-3 days and then be at the construction site the rest of the week) when I am done. --- My questions are: **Am I dreaming too big here or does my logic check out?** **Given self-discipline, dedication and hard work, is it realistic to expect things to turn out like that or similarly?** **Will there be opportunity to find meaningful work? For instance, furthering the cause of environmentally friendly buildings. Or going to remote, poor places and volunteer** **Am I putting the cart before the horse somewhere (perhaps going to uni first is a better approach?)** And here's what lead me to this plan: **Why I no longer want to do what I am doing** My line of work seems inane and I feel it doesn't give back to society. It allows me loads of freedom (self-employed) and independence. Even the opportunity to travel a lot. But again, I want to work in a field where I can contribute my fair share to society. Also, I feel like I don't want to sit in front of a screen all day. I'd love for my job to include a healthy bit of manual labour, too. I realize that architects usually don't do that sort of work, which is why I came up with the following plan: **Before going back to uni** Going back to uni right now - especially to study something as demanding as architecture - will definitely see me having to lower my standard of living. I want to avoid that. So I figured - and this ties in with my desire for manual labour - I would just start an apprenticeship as a carpenter first. When it comes to building things, I really want to focus on wood anyway. Plus, I look a bit like Jesus, so there's that. In all seriousness, my choice of craft is not that random - I did a lot of soul searching and it is indeed something I can see myself doing for more than a couple of months. And it has always been my desire to be able to build structures; to be handy, in a way. All in all, this is gonna take around 2 years. I realize I'll be well into my thirties by the time I then finish my Bachelor's in Architecture, let alone my Master's. **What I hope to gain from combining craft and academia** One of my hopes is that knowing how to handle the realities of building stuff will make me a more well-rounded architect than someone who never touched a hammer in their life. But far more importantly: I hope that this will open up the opportunity to find/create a job-situation where I spend part of my week coming up with ideas and being creative (plus of course all the mundane tasks an architect is in charge of) and the other part just exerting myself to make it happen. Lastly, I feel like having learned a craft is great insurance against not finding employment as an architect. --- Any help and input is appreciated! | e7qlq96 | e7rfs4j | 1,539,506,832 | 1,539,542,712 | 1 | 2 | I can't provide any answers for your question, since I'm in a similar position as you (mid-20's, and looking to switch careers). I have the same motivations for wanting to switch to something like Architecture in the sense that you are capable of making tangible contributions to society - or at least get to think about your work in those terms. I am also working independently as a freelancer and also want to pursue something more substantial. So best of luck! I hope someone provides some answers. I know for some people, there are many deterrents (like the long hours, etc), so I also want to know what I'm getting myself into and not enter with any veil of idealism. ​ | I'm not sure that going to architecture school is necessary for your plan. Do you want to be a licensed architect eventually? Do you need to be one to make log houses? I would become a laborer at a company that is building the type of structures that you would like to create and then branch off on your own. | 0 | 35,880 | 2 | ||
9o092f | architecture_train | 0.8 | [Ask] Need a realitycheck on my plan to switch careers Hello boys and girls of /r/architcture, as the title says, I am planning to switch careers and (eventually) study architecture. But before I set everything in motion, I felt it might be a good idea to manage expectations and get some insights from people who are already there. A bit of background info: mid-twenties, European (so going back to uni is not akin to committing financial suicide). Also: **tl;dr:** I want to do architecture. But first, I plan on doing an apprenticeship in carpentry. Eventually I want to focus on environmentally conscious building and wood. I also hope that I can be part architect and part craftsman (plan shit for 2-3 days and then be at the construction site the rest of the week) when I am done. --- My questions are: **Am I dreaming too big here or does my logic check out?** **Given self-discipline, dedication and hard work, is it realistic to expect things to turn out like that or similarly?** **Will there be opportunity to find meaningful work? For instance, furthering the cause of environmentally friendly buildings. Or going to remote, poor places and volunteer** **Am I putting the cart before the horse somewhere (perhaps going to uni first is a better approach?)** And here's what lead me to this plan: **Why I no longer want to do what I am doing** My line of work seems inane and I feel it doesn't give back to society. It allows me loads of freedom (self-employed) and independence. Even the opportunity to travel a lot. But again, I want to work in a field where I can contribute my fair share to society. Also, I feel like I don't want to sit in front of a screen all day. I'd love for my job to include a healthy bit of manual labour, too. I realize that architects usually don't do that sort of work, which is why I came up with the following plan: **Before going back to uni** Going back to uni right now - especially to study something as demanding as architecture - will definitely see me having to lower my standard of living. I want to avoid that. So I figured - and this ties in with my desire for manual labour - I would just start an apprenticeship as a carpenter first. When it comes to building things, I really want to focus on wood anyway. Plus, I look a bit like Jesus, so there's that. In all seriousness, my choice of craft is not that random - I did a lot of soul searching and it is indeed something I can see myself doing for more than a couple of months. And it has always been my desire to be able to build structures; to be handy, in a way. All in all, this is gonna take around 2 years. I realize I'll be well into my thirties by the time I then finish my Bachelor's in Architecture, let alone my Master's. **What I hope to gain from combining craft and academia** One of my hopes is that knowing how to handle the realities of building stuff will make me a more well-rounded architect than someone who never touched a hammer in their life. But far more importantly: I hope that this will open up the opportunity to find/create a job-situation where I spend part of my week coming up with ideas and being creative (plus of course all the mundane tasks an architect is in charge of) and the other part just exerting myself to make it happen. Lastly, I feel like having learned a craft is great insurance against not finding employment as an architect. --- Any help and input is appreciated! | e7qngme | e7rfs4j | 1,539,510,503 | 1,539,542,712 | -1 | 2 | *beep beep* Hi, I'm JobsHelperBot, your friendly neighborhood jobs helper bot! My job in life is to help you with your job search but I'm just 391.4 days old and I'm still learning, so please tell me if I screw up. *boop* It looks like you're asking about career advice. But, I'm only ~15% sure of this. Let me know if I'm wrong! Have you checked out BusinessInsider, HBR, ModernMom, etc.? They've got some great resources: * http://www.businessinsider.com/career-advice-you-should-never-take-2014-5 * https://hbr.org/2002/12/how-to-stay-stuck-in-the-wrong-career * https://www.modernmom.com/018a34ba-c68e-11e3-b054-bc764e0546c6.html * https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/thinking-about-a-job-change * https://www.quora.com/Career-Advice/What-are-a-few-unique-pieces-of-career-advice-that-nobody-ever-mentions | I'm not sure that going to architecture school is necessary for your plan. Do you want to be a licensed architect eventually? Do you need to be one to make log houses? I would become a laborer at a company that is building the type of structures that you would like to create and then branch off on your own. | 0 | 32,209 | -2 | ||
oqgmrj | architecture_train | 0.97 | Is it common for architects to build plans for clients who don’t end up building the house? I often see renderings in architect portfolios but fewer finished products | h6bm1sd | h6bo62j | 1,627,093,048 | 1,627,094,214 | 18 | 28 | Not uncommon. I've had a multi hundreds of millions of dollars project in my portfolio for well over a decade. Looks like it might finally break ground next year. It's included because of my specific role in the design process. There's a lot of different hats worn in architecture, from master planning through construction administration. Different projects show different things. | That's not uncommon. Projects get cancelled or can't get financing or the project runs out of money. Lots of things can happen. A lot of work is sometimes speculative too where a client is trying to get funding or approval. All these things plague residential projects too. | 0 | 1,166 | 1.555556 | ||
oqgmrj | architecture_train | 0.97 | Is it common for architects to build plans for clients who don’t end up building the house? I often see renderings in architect portfolios but fewer finished products | h6bquqq | h6boe76 | 1,627,095,748 | 1,627,094,338 | 14 | 6 | Part of the reason you see renders instead of photos a lot of the time is because the photos are uglier. Especially in commercial stuff things get budgeted out, the decor isn't quite as high class, the lighting isn't as perfect, the construction didn't quite nail the finish... | happened to mies a lot | 1 | 1,410 | 2.333333 | ||
oqgmrj | architecture_train | 0.97 | Is it common for architects to build plans for clients who don’t end up building the house? I often see renderings in architect portfolios but fewer finished products | h6bquqq | h6bofcw | 1,627,095,748 | 1,627,094,357 | 14 | 6 | Part of the reason you see renders instead of photos a lot of the time is because the photos are uglier. Especially in commercial stuff things get budgeted out, the decor isn't quite as high class, the lighting isn't as perfect, the construction didn't quite nail the finish... | My first job out of college we had a client who changed the scope five times and then never built anything. I don't think they had the money in the first place. | 1 | 1,391 | 2.333333 | ||
oqgmrj | architecture_train | 0.97 | Is it common for architects to build plans for clients who don’t end up building the house? I often see renderings in architect portfolios but fewer finished products | h6c0nz5 | h6boe76 | 1,627,101,829 | 1,627,094,338 | 11 | 6 | I'm not an architect, but an architectural drafter that works in conjunction with an engineer to provide full sets of construction documents. Over half the structures I've drawn and been paid for have never been built. | happened to mies a lot | 1 | 7,491 | 1.833333 | ||
oqgmrj | architecture_train | 0.97 | Is it common for architects to build plans for clients who don’t end up building the house? I often see renderings in architect portfolios but fewer finished products | h6bofcw | h6c0nz5 | 1,627,094,357 | 1,627,101,829 | 6 | 11 | My first job out of college we had a client who changed the scope five times and then never built anything. I don't think they had the money in the first place. | I'm not an architect, but an architectural drafter that works in conjunction with an engineer to provide full sets of construction documents. Over half the structures I've drawn and been paid for have never been built. | 0 | 7,472 | 1.833333 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.