American Architecture

[Dermot]

Wow
I have not had great feeling for a lot of US architecture, just thought that it was generally a little bit conservative.
But when the Cathederal of Light in Oaklands came onto my screen today I got the digital feeling of the real feeling that I had a couple of months ago on walking into St Peters basillica in Rome, a gasp!. Well sort of anyhow.
But it looks impressive none the less.
Question? How did the architects convince the staid old catholic church to open their miserable, conservative, moth eaten purse's to facilitate such a wonderus (looking) project.
I suppose it was concieved in more financially bouyant times, but it certainly is a building of light in these gloomy times, there may be a few folks going in there in the coming month's & years praying for some light to shine at the end of the tunnel.
Cheers Dermot

[nanrehvasconez]

You are so right, the USA residential architecture in particular is so conservative that the costly mega Victorian style and Mediterranean stily are prevalent. The popular housing is just plain ugly and without merit.

In religious architecture, there are many churches and temples of great merit, the Airforce Academy Casthedral, Saint Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco, the Cristal Cathedral in Orange County, FLW Jewish Temple among others are very modern.

[Landy]

US architecture is the solution to our present time always efficient and done the express way!

[nanrehvasconez]

If there is a solution for affordable housing in the world, we should emulate the Netherlans, Norway, Sweden, approach to housing, practical, efficient, easy to build, and most of all carbon-neutral if you care to be "green". It allows you to enjoy life without american pedantry and exess.

American housing and SUV's are anti green, conssume enormous amounts of energy and resources, it's sinfull.

[ajmarshy]

I would tend to disagree that American domestic architecture is very conservative. Louis Sullivan and his influence upon International Modernism comes to mind. What about the great strides being made into environmentally friendly architecture such as the Nautilus Earthship 1996 by Michael Reynolds? We mustn't forget the Stahl House by Koenig 1960.

I have recently reviewed a book called the American House on my blog here which may be of interest

http://fotofacade.com/?p=996

[RollST]

What i think about american architecture particularly on the coutry side is that they build very "cheap".
Everything is made out of fine walls. Most of them are not made out of bricks or trunks like in canada or european countries.

[sabe]

i like led light on external wall though not too envirnmental friendly...small amount at citiies buildings is fine...NYC timesquare common to the world..bar code light sure sheek

[WalkerARCHITECTS]

The central focus of my practice is residential architecture.

[url]http://www.seattlehomesmag.com/Seattle-Homes-and-Lifestyles/Find-a-Professional/Professional-Portfolios/index.php?category=Architects&listing=10545

The bulk of American housing is not being designed by architects at all but rather by persons who call themselves designers or residential designers and the goal is not to provide quality housing to people but rather price driven for quick sale housing so as to take their profit and go on to the next one. What incentive is there to pay for good design?

I agree with the comments here the quality sucks. Let me lead the purge to condemn all the mediocrity. As an architect the housing developments in the US are simply in the aggregate poor.

Despite the speculative delivery structure and it's pitfalls on rare occasions some good homes get built. Some builders care and want to build good buildings but they must compete with those others head to head in a market where price over shadows quality in the buying decision. Lenders must always be paid and it costs money to have a house sitting and waiting for some family with enough money to fall in love with it. Wish I knew how to change that system for the better.[/url]

[djswan]

[cousinbirgco]

[djswan]

[SDR]

Seriously, could you expound a bit on "the guild system" ? In my retirement I seek to make best use of my not-yet-failing abilities in the most effective and mutually-beneficial way.

How does it work ?

The Oakland cathedral (?) is apparently worthy of note. As it is twenty minutes from where I live, I guess it's time for a look-see. I'll report. . .


SDR

PS The San Francisco St Mary's is interesting but flawed. I want to see the recently built one in Los Angeles. Looks good in pictures. . .

[djswan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild

The church and guilds didn't mix well, niether did the church and native culture, or the church and free thinking, or the church and...

here's the church version

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07066c.htm


this is a good one.

http://www.fredautley.com/thesis.htm


I have to keep some secrets. You go on a journey to find out what the secrets are.

[csintexas]

[Richard Haut]

very interesting to see the idea of Guilds.

Guilds meant high quality - a demand for exceptional quality from the membership, or the serious risk getting kicked out. Getting kicked out of a Guild usually meant ruin.

but wait a minute ..... surely the architects already have a form of Guild ? Indeed they do - and they have allowed its real reasons for existing to become obscured.

architect-designed does NOT automatically mean good quality and value, and non-architect designed does NOT automatically mean poor quality and value, as Chris rightly says.

certainly good design can (and should) also mean good value. If architects want to be appreciated, to be valued, then they should address the problems in the world around them - their institutes should be centres of exceptional standards for improving the built environment. Bluntly, they ain't.