Ducts haven't been designed yet but the usual spans only a couple of feet. The span is only part of the problem. The rating is the other. Right now I'm leaning to a shaftwall enclosure sitting on an HSS bridge spanning the stair shaft. It's not the thinnest I can do but it's the fastest.
Often I'm very happy that we don't build like they used to. Many older buildings were NOT designed to last. My own house (1886) was originally a beach cottage (2200 sq. ft) and had 2x3 interior bearing walls with studs varying from 14" to 22" apart. We screwed 1/2" CDX on those walls before wall boarding. Another example, today I inspected a 1905 building for which I had the original contract documents. The drawings showed 2-18x55 "I" beams placed side by side with lead throughwall flashing over them, spanning 26'. Opened her up and there was a 26" deep built up riveted beam that clearly had been taken from a larger older structure. No flashing and extreme rusting. Much will have to be replaced making for a very sad owner (who lives above the beam). Many "traditional" older buildings are not water resistant and have serious problems with rising damp and mold that are extremely difficult to repair, etc., etc. EDS
I once inspected a 1850s house in Baltimore that was incredibly well kept inside with original woodwood and fittings like marbel mantles and glorious panelling, later fixtures from the gaslight period that had been expertly converted, even the light on the carved circular main stair. Nothing I had seen so far outside a museum matched the detail in this inexpensive place. It had been used as a convent for quite a long time and the nuns had kept it very well. Only one problem.....As you went one room back, then two, the house listed. It was one of the brick Baltimore houses that had been built on literally floating foundations, on huge logs. and some part of that floating had dried up causing settlement in several different directions.
You probably know this but there are many newsgroups that actually discuss and post items according to their name and intent. There is no other newsgroup that claims to discuss architecture, that is really sad. Discussing objects that pertain to a profession or projects they might be working on, or, questions on why things happen within your profession seems helpful to me.
CID...
You know you're free like the rest to post whatever you want, even if it is on topic, right? How many threads have you *started* on topic?
Googling "chuck" "cid" and "architecture" doesn't show many if any started threads.( I confess I didn't dig too deep. )
Your complaint reminds me of the approbations of the "serious" employees at the most fun office I ever worked in (sic) 20 years ago. We used to carry on like children when we weren't behaving like professionals. We're all succeeded in the business, and most of us have our own firms. We still get together despite kids and companies, because we *enjoy* ourselves. There's always a good belly laugh.
You can screw around and be an architect at the same time, and I think you need a sense of humor to get by in this business, as a "little guy" anyway. Having heard most of it before, there are frankly few conversations, other than political or technical ones, that could be construed as "architectural" that I might find really interesting. They are out there, but most so much of what passes for 'architectural discourse' is pure marketing that I can't imagine wasting my time on it.
If you've got a burning topic, other than hummus, why not start a thread?
Isnt that true with most if not all newsgroups that aren't moderated?
You are.
Everything is about architecture. Architecture is about everything.
The design- oriented kind, or what?
There are kinds of architecture that aren't design oriented?
Mmm.... entrails...
One popular thread here is "why don't you spontaneously generate the threads I'm interested in without my having to bother to initiate them?" Also, "waaaaaa waaaaaa" has a nice regular recurrence.
You mention hummus a lot. What is your problem with hummus? Have you ever adhered two bricks togevver wiv hummus?
That's called spam. It has been going on for years. Perhaps you are new to usenet.
Perhaps I'm about to be told how spam is email.
You'd do a whole lot better if the subject on your thread weren't so nebulous. You'd do a whole lot better if your contribution weren't preceded by endless ages of carping. Not that I have anything against goldfish. You'd do a whole lot better if you waited for solid defining answers to your previous questions before deciding, all of a sudden and in the blazing glare of clear ignorance, what the (singular?) topic of this group must be. Maybe you don't want to do good?
Are McMansions our culture's new fold architecture? What's a McMansion? Can you have architecture w/o architects? Does your licensing board, local violence monopoly, or AIA chapter agree?
How many Python references were contained in this post?
Ah, crap. The moderator has spoken. Now I've got to do the Hail To The Moderator dance...
Hail to the Moderator. Hail hail and never no sleet. Hail to the Moderator [Sorry, I know you didn't really want to see that.] Whose justice is meet.
Now please, don't make him come forth again.
Not in the way I think you think it is.
They're all over in "alt.elitists.boobs"
Wow, that was fabulous-- especially the crump-- nice touch!
it is possible the OP was referring to the range of things called architecture
like
system architecture
organisational architecture
but of course, if reading was a base skill looking at even a couple posts would clarify that bit
so perhaps it was the differentiation between industrial/commercial/residential the OP was asking to have clarified
ultimately all I am interested in is innovative responses to architectural challenges - my key area of interest as a designer though is period architecture from the 1830's to the 1930's
Steve
no clearer :0
I thought I was the official keeper of the FAQ?!?
Thwow him to the floow.
Yes, but which of those don't involve design?
My money's on the former option.
"eds" wrote in news:G8adnQDlnIvflxbbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
OK, I'm not from "the real world", but I have a few questions anywhoo, because ignoramus or not, I remain curious...
So:
Q#1 - do you (as in, "You All", the Ubiquitous 'you') think that people talk about "the good old days when things were built to last", not because all things were, but rather, because all they see now (i.e., all that is left standing) are the things that were (perhaps accidentally?) built in such a way that they lasted? IOW, because they are working off of a very narrow range of samples (buildings that lasted, as opposed to "all buildings built prior to [insert preferred year]...?)
Q#2 - re: "traditional" versus "modern", is there such a thing as "most appropriate"...? Shouldn't the "style" (for lack of a better word) be at least partially determined by the requirements that a structure is supposed to fulfill? So, if one of the primary ideas is to maximize light (to reduce lighting costs), wouldn't choose to maximize the surface area of glass...? ALso, is "traditional/historical" *ALWAYS* at odds with "modern"? Again, maybe I'm just uneducated, but, isn't the primary characteristic of "modern" something like "clean lines; uncluttered design"? IOW, i don't see that "modern" MUST mean "stark; completely devoid of any decorative, sculpted, hand-made, or softening element"... So doesn't it create a false/unnecesary opposition to insist that "traditional" and "modern" MUST be oppositional?
I think people see too many things in terms of black-and-white, in a false way - humans create oppositions - the world/universe is not even merely shades or grey - it's Kodacolor, *plus* everything down to the far-infrared and up to gamma rays.
Doesn't it limit the possibilities to insist that certain things must be in opposition one to the other...?
Is there any good photo/example of a beautiful and functional structure that blends traditional and modern? IF not, isn't that kind of sad...?
"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news4.newsguy.com:
[ ... ]Er, I liked earth-tones (speaking in hte sense of artist's paints and pigments) long before the muddy schlop that get *called* earth-tones became fashionable.
Does that make me part of the herd =:-o ? Or ahead of my time...? Or just perpetually weird ;) ?
innews:G8adnQDlnIvflxbbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
"Is there any good photo/example of a beautiful and functional structure that blends traditional and modern? IF not, isn't that kind of sad...? "
I think architects and designers are slowly realising that a structure is more than the walls , the limits, that a house is more than what meet the eye , that structure is more important. It has not alway's been like that, and also many "modern" buildings tend to be a Tinhat with a second house inside, to provide the nessery floors and stairs, walls ----- but as long as architecture are stuck in the old perception , then nomatter what form, what style or what small "innovative" gadged is added, it still is within the limitations that kept architecture in perciving a house as four walls and a roof --- not before structure are reconised for real, and the computer are seriously allowed to calculate the individual building frame, will we realise that a house are more than surfaces.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.