I really liked how David Orr talked about Inuits. He quotes Victor Papenek saying that Inuits are forced into excellent architecture and design by their environment, space, and climate. I also liked the quote by Vine Deloria: "the traditional Indian stood in the center of a circle and brought everything together in that circle. Today we stand at the end of a line and work our way along that line, discarding or avoiding everything on either side of us." I think that these limitations lead to really great architecture and design. I've always liked the way that igloos look and how longhouses look but are also extremely functional and natural and are made out of practical and available materials. I never would have thought to make a house out of snow or tree bark in this day and age, but there is still something beautiful about them. Nora K.
My favorite part in the reading was when Orr talks about the Amish. I thought the joke he told was very funny about the horse and buggy. On a more serious note, I though his comment about how the Amish don't contribute to "climate change, cancer rates, and the loss of biodiversity" was very interesting. We are living in a world in which there is an energy crisis. What really struck me is how he put it in perspective how unsustainable our lives are and how at any moment something "ecological, economic, technological, [or] social" could change everything we thought was normal. I know with being Amish bring limitations, but it is interesting to think that if I was raised Amish I would not be so concerned about the oil crisis or cancer rates. I know this has nothing to do with architecture, but thats what stood out in the reading for me. As for the questions posed. Everyone has there own idea of what is good or attractive architecture. Some people prefer brick building while others prefer concrete. What a person likes usually depends on where someone lives. This is true for everything from architecture to political views. The people who live a in a town where all the buildings are brick, more than likely like brick buildings (unless they were forced to live there for some reason). If so one were to come in and build a house out of popsicle sticks, the people in the community would proably get upset because it would throw of the esthetics of the community. I don't think it matters whether a building is beautiful or ugly because there is bound to be someone who likes it. It is the same with everything: some people like impressionist paintings some don't; so people like bandanas, some don't. It just would really suck if you didn't like the building and had to walk by it or live in it everyday. I am also sure you would probably get used to it. Same thing goes for style. I am sure someone is still going to like the building even if it was out of style because if no one did it would be knocked down unless it was some sort of land mark. Also the picture of what Penn Station used to look like in comparison to what it looks like now is pretty different. Wow. Fo Pett
I disagree with your comments about people liking the architecture of the community they live in. I don't think that necessarily has to be true. I live in a building that resembles a 25-story yellow concrete block, that, in my opinion, couldn't be uglier if it tried. I'm not really forced to live there, but I still think that it is aesthetically hideous. I think there are many factors that contribute to what kind of building people choose to live in. It seems to me that aesthetics can be less important in choosing a dwelling here in New York because space is at such a premium.
I was really intrigued by the lens that Orr examined architecture through. No matter what culture or specific architectural example he was enumerating, he always brought the focus back to the ecological impact of the structures, the way they developed, and how they affected the societies that they were a part of. In addition, i feel like its much easier to follow along with the book because of the many specific examples he gives rather than just broad overviews and theories that don't really delve into specific issues. And like forest, i also enjoyed the Amish example. The only thing i feel like he didn't mention about it was that Amish architectural simplicity is by choice rather than adapting to a situation like weather in the arctic etc.
I thouroughly enjoyed the first chapter of "The nature of Design". Orr discussed architecture from a point that was completely new to me. Though I know global warming is a pressing current issue and designing environmentally sustainable structures are important, I always thought we must somehow a new futuristic technoligy that will solve all of our problems instead of thinking like Orr and looking at what worked in the past. Also, not only are the examples he sited sustainably designed with little to no environmental footprint they offered hints at easy ways for individual people to start thinking about strategies to help cutback and reduce their footprint. I thought Orr's observation of the Amish culture and how they use nature to set their limits was something that can apply to every aspect of our lives. -D.Gibbs
In a delicate world, any major event could cause an imbalence with societal norms. For example, Orr's perspective on the ecological importance of achitecture because saving the delicate balance of our ecosystems are vital. In adddtion, i enjoy orr's outlook on architecture as a complex form of art that can alter its surrondings. In response to your penn station question, both pictures are the extremes. I was never aware that Penn station was once an asthectical piece of architecture, but now it's a hole in the ground filled with people scurying to work. For that reason alone, I feel that we should still have the 1st version of the Penn station building because architecture is a "gift that keeps on giving". Jo-Sar
I liked reading about the town of Harberton. I enjoyed hearing about a town that has remained the same for centuries, and has still functioned, and functions on "civility and friendliness." I can't imagine a one way pass where drivers would have to wave the other drivers through. I also liked the idea that the architecture of the town could be enhanced by nature's landscape and the thought that something can be learned from small towns and societies that haven't changed for centuries. While some people may ignore these unchanged towns because they are not as advanced as other places, they are ignoring the fact that clearly these towns and their systems have some sort of balance that has allowed them to sustain themselves for centuries.
Like many other people have said, I enjoyed reading Orr's discussion about the Amish and Inuit peoples. I was particularly intrigued with Orr's assertion that the Inuit people "observe details with keenness lost to Western people" (7). His question that immediately followed ("Can design ingenuity be bred into a culture by adversity?" (7)) also made me think. I would have to say that design ingenuity can develop in a culture because of what could be considered adverse conditions. As Orr points out, they have to design structures that will withstand their harsh climate. They are forced by the conditions in which they live to be creative with their design thinking, at the very least more than a group living in New York or any other major city. I also think it is extremely impressive that the Inuit people were able to develop such sharp senses of observation and memory. It can only improve their ability to design effectively.
I also thought that the story of the town of Harberton was very interesting. It really gives a perfect example of the idea "if it isn't broken, don't fix it." Just because it fell slightly behind technologically, the town still functions perfectly and everyone in it is completely happy with the way it is. This ties into the Penn Station case slightly, as well as many other cases where something that a lot of effort was put into to build and does its job perfectly is destroyed just for the sake of "progress." I am seriously always one for embracing new ideas and technology, but the old doesn't neccessarily have to be destroyed to make way for the new. -Jordan F
I thought that the way in which he discusses ecological design was interesting. Instead of focusing on a materialistic change, the methods by which we build and design buildings, he focused on it as more of a fundamental, philosophical change. This was refreshing to me because after many assemblies and the like, finally, there is something that addresses the long term issues instead of something short term, such as changing the way we build. I am not saying that short term is not important as well, but I think that it is important that we realize just how much we fundamentally need to change to make these environmentally friendly goals a reality. DK
I realize it had nothing to do with architecture, but I loved the part about his Amish friend. I love it when books add humor to a primarily unfunny event or idea. It makes the book easier to read. I also like how right Orr is when he says that there would not be 4 miles of countryside between two places, but rather 4 miles of malls and buildings. I also liked the Inuit story and how they were forced to change due to climate, and position. The imagery is not that great, but upon thinking about it, Orr's style of writing makes you think about the imagery, making it good imagery. KeeMcc
The way in which Orr chooses to open his book is interesting. Like others probably did, I expected him to start talking about design concepts right off the bat. Instead, however, he starts from the very beginning, discussing how design concepts are created or influenced, and then giving some examples (Amish, Inuits, etc.). He talks about natural and human influences -- what does the design of something require of nature and people in order to be successful? He cites a roadway in England as an example for this concept. Going into the rest of the book, Orr's readers are now armed with an understanding of why some things inevitably to be discussed later in the book are the way they are. Steve
12 comments:
I really liked how David Orr talked about Inuits. He quotes Victor Papenek saying that Inuits are forced into excellent architecture and design by their environment, space, and climate. I also liked the quote by Vine Deloria: "the traditional Indian stood in the center of a circle and brought everything together in that circle. Today we stand at the end of a line and work our way along that line, discarding or avoiding everything on either side of us."
I think that these limitations lead to really great architecture and design. I've always liked the way that igloos look and how longhouses look but are also extremely functional and natural and are made out of practical and available materials. I never would have thought to make a house out of snow or tree bark in this day and age, but there is still something beautiful about them.
Nora K.
My favorite part in the reading was when Orr talks about the Amish. I thought the joke he told was very funny about the horse and buggy. On a more serious note, I though his comment about how the Amish don't contribute to "climate change, cancer rates, and the loss of biodiversity" was very interesting. We are living in a world in which there is an energy crisis. What really struck me is how he put it in perspective how unsustainable our lives are and how at any moment something "ecological, economic, technological, [or] social" could change everything we thought was normal. I know with being Amish bring limitations, but it is interesting to think that if I was raised Amish I would not be so concerned about the oil crisis or cancer rates. I know this has nothing to do with architecture, but thats what stood out in the reading for me.
As for the questions posed. Everyone has there own idea of what is good or attractive architecture. Some people prefer brick building while others prefer concrete. What a person likes usually depends on where someone lives. This is true for everything from architecture to political views. The people who live a in a town where all the buildings are brick, more than likely like brick buildings (unless they were forced to live there for some reason). If so one were to come in and build a house out of popsicle sticks, the people in the community would proably get upset because it would throw of the esthetics of the community.
I don't think it matters whether a building is beautiful or ugly because there is bound to be someone who likes it. It is the same with everything: some people like impressionist paintings some don't; so people like bandanas, some don't. It just would really suck if you didn't like the building and had to walk by it or live in it everyday. I am also sure you would probably get used to it. Same thing goes for style. I am sure someone is still going to like the building even if it was out of style because if no one did it would be knocked down unless it was some sort of land mark.
Also the picture of what Penn Station used to look like in comparison to what it looks like now is pretty different. Wow.
Fo Pett
To FoPett
I disagree with your comments about people liking the architecture of the community they live in. I don't think that necessarily has to be true. I live in a building that resembles a 25-story yellow concrete block, that, in my opinion, couldn't be uglier if it tried. I'm not really forced to live there, but I still think that it is aesthetically hideous. I think there are many factors that contribute to what kind of building people choose to live in. It seems to me that aesthetics can be less important in choosing a dwelling here in New York because space is at such a premium.
--Samantha H.
I was really intrigued by the lens that Orr examined architecture through. No matter what culture or specific architectural example he was enumerating, he always brought the focus back to the ecological impact of the structures, the way they developed, and how they affected the societies that they were a part of. In addition, i feel like its much easier to follow along with the book because of the many specific examples he gives rather than just broad overviews and theories that don't really delve into specific issues. And like forest, i also enjoyed the Amish example. The only thing i feel like he didn't mention about it was that Amish architectural simplicity is by choice rather than adapting to a situation like weather in the arctic etc.
N Koke
I thouroughly enjoyed the first chapter of "The nature of Design". Orr discussed architecture from a point that was completely new to me. Though I know global warming is a pressing current issue and designing environmentally sustainable structures are important, I always thought we must somehow a new futuristic technoligy that will solve all of our problems instead of thinking like Orr and looking at what worked in the past. Also, not only are the examples he sited sustainably designed with little to no environmental footprint they offered hints at easy ways for individual people to start thinking about strategies to help cutback and reduce their footprint. I thought Orr's observation of the Amish culture and how they use nature to set their limits was something that can apply to every aspect of our lives.
-D.Gibbs
In a delicate world, any major event could cause an imbalence with societal norms. For example, Orr's perspective on the ecological importance of achitecture because saving the delicate balance of our ecosystems are vital. In adddtion, i enjoy orr's outlook on architecture as a complex form of art that can alter its surrondings. In response to your penn station question, both pictures are the extremes. I was never aware that Penn station was once an asthectical piece of architecture, but now it's a hole in the ground filled with people scurying to work. For that reason alone, I feel that we should still have the 1st version of the Penn station building because architecture is a "gift that keeps on giving". Jo-Sar
I liked reading about the town of Harberton. I enjoyed hearing about a town that has remained the same for centuries, and has still functioned, and functions on "civility and friendliness." I can't imagine a one way pass where drivers would have to wave the other drivers through. I also liked the idea that the architecture of the town could be enhanced by nature's landscape and the thought that something can be learned from small towns and societies that haven't changed for centuries. While some people may ignore these unchanged towns because they are not as advanced as other places, they are ignoring the fact that clearly these towns and their systems have some sort of balance that has allowed them to sustain themselves for centuries.
-Lia
Like many other people have said, I enjoyed reading Orr's discussion about the Amish and Inuit peoples. I was particularly intrigued with Orr's assertion that the Inuit people "observe details with keenness lost to Western people" (7). His question that immediately followed ("Can design ingenuity be bred into a culture by adversity?" (7)) also made me think. I would have to say that design ingenuity can develop in a culture because of what could be considered adverse conditions. As Orr points out, they have to design structures that will withstand their harsh climate. They are forced by the conditions in which they live to be creative with their design thinking, at the very least more than a group living in New York or any other major city. I also think it is extremely impressive that the Inuit people were able to develop such sharp senses of observation and memory. It can only improve their ability to design effectively.
--Samantha H.
I also thought that the story of the town of Harberton was very interesting. It really gives a perfect example of the idea "if it isn't broken, don't fix it." Just because it fell slightly behind technologically, the town still functions perfectly and everyone in it is completely happy with the way it is. This ties into the Penn Station case slightly, as well as many other cases where something that a lot of effort was put into to build and does its job perfectly is destroyed just for the sake of "progress." I am seriously always one for embracing new ideas and technology, but the old doesn't neccessarily have to be destroyed to make way for the new.
-Jordan F
I thought that the way in which he discusses ecological design was interesting. Instead of focusing on a materialistic change, the methods by which we build and design buildings, he focused on it as more of a fundamental, philosophical change. This was refreshing to me because after many assemblies and the like, finally, there is something that addresses the long term issues instead of something short term, such as changing the way we build. I am not saying that short term is not important as well, but I think that it is important that we realize just how much we fundamentally need to change to make these environmentally friendly goals a reality.
DK
I realize it had nothing to do with architecture, but I loved the part about his Amish friend. I love it when books add humor to a primarily unfunny event or idea. It makes the book easier to read. I also like how right Orr is when he says that there would not be 4 miles of countryside between two places, but rather 4 miles of malls and buildings. I also liked the Inuit story and how they were forced to change due to climate, and position. The imagery is not that great, but upon thinking about it, Orr's style of writing makes you think about the imagery, making it good imagery.
KeeMcc
The way in which Orr chooses to open his book is interesting. Like others probably did, I expected him to start talking about design concepts right off the bat. Instead, however, he starts from the very beginning, discussing how design concepts are created or influenced, and then giving some examples (Amish, Inuits, etc.). He talks about natural and human influences -- what does the design of something require of nature and people in order to be successful? He cites a roadway in England as an example for this concept. Going into the rest of the book, Orr's readers are now armed with an understanding of why some things inevitably to be discussed later in the book are the way they are. Steve
Post a Comment