Is it possible?

Page 2 of 2  

Just a guess, but, (1) one's preferred work environment is often different from one's preferred home/living environment; (2) many company executives what their company to be *perceived* as being cutting edge,and/or modern, efficient, sleek, future-oriented, progresive, constantly renewing itself, and so on - but what these same people consider "home" - or, perhaps more accurately, what their *wives* consider "homey" - is typically far more traditional and conservative.
IOW, the company "face" is typically something like a "sheep in wolf's clothing". Sort of like taking plain old mundane Borax, and putting it into a curvy-shaped brushed-stainless-steel container and calling it "technoclean".

As above. The visual language says "progressive/innovative". OTOH, banks, for example, want to project a visual signal that says "tradition" and "stability".
It's generally self-defeating to underestimate the power of symbols as communication. Why do you think different people buy different style s of cars? Practicality is, for most people, a very *very* distant second to the sonconscious idea of "what does this item say about me, what image does it project to others".
In essence, architects are sort of like "clothing designers" for clients - and, as the saying goes, "clothes make the man". If you dress like a bum, people will treat you like one, even if you have $10million in investments and bank accounts. OTOH, you can be penniless, but, if you can wrangle designer-label duds, people treat you like royalty.
IOW, it's all about perceptions - for the vast majority of people, their actions are based, *not* upon rational analysis, but upon their subconscious perceptions.

I don't knwo that the question is relevant. For one thing, in essence, you're implying (whether intentionally or not) that "whatever is average (a.k.a. mundane, un-inventive, uncreative) is The Absolute Best thing to do in all cases". That sort of idea is one reason that energy efficiency is still so underused - to some people, fiberglass batting seems to be some sort of strange new alien technology.

Personally, I loathe pseudo-neo-"Colonial" stuff - OTOH, as people who move frequently, we were well aware, when we bought the house in our area Massachusetts, that a neo-Colonial was the *only* thing that we'd be able to resell when we moved again, because the average buyer thre is habituated to that style and sees other styles (except for perhaps Victorian) as weird, ugly, freakish, or otherwise undesireable.
And your exaggerated overgeneralization that *ALL* companies use "freakish" architecture is patently wrong.

Just churn out the "same old same-old" as the saying goes? Not at all. And if it were, well, there'd be no point in having architects at all - all you'd need is people who could finagle the engineeringto add or subtract more rooms/subunits.
Was the Empire State Building the building-style that the common people used for their dwellings? The Arch in St. Louis? Were the cathedrals and plazas and so on of Rennaissance Europe? Of course not. They embodied the *aspirations* of people, not the tedious, unchanging routines of the Daily Grind. They were revolutionalry for their times.
Yet your implications is that they therefore ought not to have been built at all.
Architecture is more than just Yet Another Bowl of Gruel that people don't even have to chew, never mind think about. If/when it does become that, it will have died, and something else will have taken its place.
Yes, people need to have a sense of continuity with the past, but they also have to have a sense of the promise of the future.
The Artist (and yes, Architecture is, at least sometimes, *still* one of th eArts) persents people with ideas, views, perceptions of, and about, the world that they otherwise would not have thought about.
I would not want to live in a world where all one ever saw was the past. Too many people are stuck in ht epast, or at least, some idealized version of it that people mistake for being the past.
And here is ahuge problem with what gets passed off as being "traditional" - it seldom *is*. If one is going to blither about "traditional", then do that which is *actually* so. None of this nonsense of slapping Victorian gingerbread onto a pseudo- Mediterranian/Pueblo/Haciena Frankenstein monster. None of this BS with gluing a few boards onto a basic Monopoly game-piece structure and calling it "Tudor". Lose all of that BS. IF you're going to do traditional Tuscan, then DO traditional Tuscan - same for all the rest. No more mixing metaphors, because all that does is *destroy* the things that truely *are* traditional, that truely *are* links to the past.
As with all things, the sword cuts both ways. Pasting froufrou onto a box does not turn it into a work of woodworking artisanship.

So anyone who likes the fact that any "public context" which includes innovation is, what?
Maybe not everyone thinks the way you do. Maybe some like to have both.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
Add image file

Related Threads is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.