Anybody know this house?

[marcenmoni]

[However, the link to Good Morning America's story on the house is dead.

Colonial", them

John C. Henry couldn't do proper 'historical detailing' if his life depended on it. There are no classical proportions in that piece of crap. In fact, just about all the 'detailing' in it is totally out of proportion, badly combined, grammatically incorrect or just plain ugly.

That said, for historical references it's always best to go to the source:

There is no such thing as 'traditional French colonial'. The architecture found in French colonies was as varied as the places occupied. Perhaps the Vieux-Carre district in New Orleans might have something of similar flavor, more familiar to Americans, but I would eschew that and go to the source.

For true French neoclassical architecture, start with Jules Mansart; his masterpiece the Les Invalides church in Paris gets the detailing right.

By the way, I'm doing a Scottish Baronial style mansion for a client in Fort Lauderdale. Fortunately he had the sense to start with a good source: the Muckross house in Ireland, designed by William Burn.

Marcello

[Michael (LS)]

While that may be true (and I'll do my best to make my project more accurate) my client likes the front elevation (he has not seen the rest of it).

Thank you for this. This was the kind of input I was seeking when starting this thread (though all the other input has been valuable and/or interesting).

Yeah, and this client doesn't seem to care much for it either. I'm not sure where he got the idea that he wanted "traditional French colonial" but everything I've shown him tht he likes tends to be more along the lines of Romanesque Revival or Gothic Revival. I'm still trying to nail him down on a style but he seems adamant about combining the parts he like from each.

I'll give it a looksie.

Thanks,

Michael (LS)

[Michael (LS)]

I too found most to be very appealing (though not all, and the house I pointed out wouldn't be one of my picks from his work)

Me too! Me too!

Nor I, mayeb that's why the "ego" has been replaced by the "practicality"?

I'd say a handicap, unless it's impossible to have the knowledge without also having the "by the book" attitude.

Yep, that's what led me to start the thread. Unfortunately, nobody has been able to point to a "correct" example built in the last 50 years or so. Does that mean that nobody is doing it right? Lots of people have said "that's crap" and a handful have said look at "_____" for historical accuracy. So far nobody has said "So-and-so did an accurate (and/or appealing) house a few years back".

Oh well, been a good thread even if it took a different direction than I'd hoped.

Michael (LS)

[Richard MacIntyre]

As I may have already mentioned awhile back; I was somewhat surprised, maybe disappointed, by Chris' (or anyone else's) response, and/or lack thereof, with regard to follow-up, especially given that he appears to be a proponent of choreography (with a background to match), of which, at least one would think, follow-up would seem natural, to go hand-in-hand, in an after-the-fact, or a let's-see-if-this-(choreographic)-design-actually-works-the-way-it-was-intended, sort of way.

The sense I got is that the idea of one's own follow-up in the field came out of left field.

Chris still hasn't followed up, incidentally, on what he said he would with regard to my year-old post.

(Special mention goes to adaptive reuses and why they work or don't work.)

Perhaps the biggest test against which the success or failure of an architectural work (or most anything else for that matter) is, simply, the test of time.

Why do we study architecture in the first place? Study is follow-up.

If we take time out of our methodological equations with our own designs as architects & designers, what else is there really?

[cegan]

Richard.....

First...ouch!

I apologize for not following through.

For the record....I am not really interested in projects that try to copy ANY style.

When the conversation turns to "which approach is better when copying" ...I simply lose interest. It is not what I do....and I am fundamentally opposed to this approach ....so when the group chooses to spend a lot of energy on such questions I simply tune out. It is not architecture the way I think of it....but I do not want to waste time judging those who think otherwise. It is simply not a conversation for me.

When I design anything....a house, a church, a restaurant, a school science lab, a factory, a kitchen....whatever.... for me the first question is the choreography...the flow of people, goods, etc. For precisely that reason....I am not interested in the ability of one or another designer to copy a particular design or style. That is not the work of an architect.

I design a broad range of project types....but "style" is never as important as flow and function. From what I have seen....most of this thread has dealt with superficial appearance instead of function or flow....so I chose to butt out. It is clear that no one in this thread is interested in the issues I consider important to architecture....so there is no reason to waste my time talkiing about issues more profound than "style".

Richard.....with the deepest respect...if you will ask me a question I will try my damnedest to answer you with the seriousness it deserves. Please accept my apologies for not replying properly prior to this.

Christopher

[marcenmoni]

Chris, you may want to elaborate a bit better. By your own words then, Palladio, who was, by and large, copying greek and roman decorative styling, wouldn't be an architect, and neither would Wren, McKim, Vignola, Sansovino, R.M. Hunt, etc.

Marcello

[Kris Krieger]

"steve" wrote in news:_72je.825$5p.622@lakeread02:

One point I'd like to comment on. Most people probably *don't* know what they want in terms of building - because they typically haven't previously been in the position of being able to build their own place. Ignorance merely means lacking education, and it is true that most people have not had a reason to become educated in things related to building a place. When people do get to where they can build one, some seek education, others don't. It's a pain in the bucket to work with people who don't want to learn, but know all to well how to demand (regardless of whether what they demand is doable or not) - that's true in *any* job or profession.