Earthquake resistance: Linear, or not...?

[Kris Krieger]

"EDS" wrote in news:BuGdnUjbrtYZa0LanZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

[edited]

Well, except that I typed them correctly in the search =:-o

It makes me wonder whether the overall/general American aesthetic is generally be more backward-looking than the European. Is it useful to sak whether living with History (for example, structures that have been inhabited for literally hundreds of years) allows Europeans to feel more comfortable with looking towards the future? Maybe the general "gestalt" of America still includes a bit of insecurity as to where we fit into history, in terms of structures? I don't know, I'm asking - not even sure whetehr it's a *valid* question, it's just one that occurred to me. For example, it was notable to me that Clatrava's most "mundane" looking project was in Dallas...

I'd be interested in peole's thoughts about that. It's entirely possible that I just don't know enough about American architecture, but ti does seem to me that, when I think of futuristic/foreward-looking architecture, I don't think first about American projects.

Related recommended reading references (alliteration not intentional!) would also be great :)

[EDS]

You have an interesting theory. Our oldest surviving buildings, except in the Southwest and Mexico date only to the 17th century, and most of those were domestic. The house in my town from 1638 looks not that different than present day structures (although the construction is quite different). Maybe we need a few more centurys of cooking before we begin to accept radical ideas. EDS

[Kris Krieger]

"EDS" wrote in news:ruudnZGfk-T_jH3anZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

THis is what I'm wondering. Maybe there is a sort fo subconscious emotional (and maybe intellectual?) security that is created by "knowing your roots" so to speak. OK, you know ho whard it is for me to resist a gardening metaphor ;) so here goes - maybe it's analagous to a tree, where the branches can't spread wide until the roots have grown deep and stable.

It&#39;s interesting in that one mgiht expect the opposite - IOW< that, given the US is a country of immigrants, Americans would be the most foreward- looking/"avant garde" of all peoples, but it sometimes seems that the opposite is true.

Or maybe it&#39;s a matter of land - Americans still have the idea tht land is limitless, so less importance is placed upon inspirational architecture - OTOH, Europe can&#39;t really afford to turn over much more of its agricultural land to housing, so, since the population is so highly urbanized, maybe it&#39;s more important there to have the built environment be beautiful and even inspiring...?

Just wondering.

Which of course is not to say that *all* American architecture is "traditional", it just seems that, when it comes to creating breathtaking and inspirational, the US has fallen behind (or perhaps has fallen further behind?)

Again, that&#39;s not based upon any study, it&#39;s just an impression I have regarding both residential architecture and public architecture, and I&#39;m not even sure *how* to study it.

[EDS]

Keep following it, this concept looks interesting. I can even imagine a sci-fi story that follows the idea of more ingenious structures (growing them to plan?) as a society matures. But the most ingenious and interesting major buildings now are in Asian and Near East City States. I foresee an almost Hellenic feeling about the revision of mankind&#39;s cultures within these small Petri dishes of concentrated urbanism. Have you ever read "Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind"? From the late 80&#39;s I think, about a theory that the brain naturally mutated as man became urbanized and had to work with others, so that by around 1200 BC the present mental layout became more dominant. Prior to that time the sides of the brain were more connected, allowing "voices and orders from the gods" to circulate unhindered between the left and right sides of the brain. Kris, you are interested in all kinds of stuff. My cousin (only 84 yrs old) and I regularly have 2 hour telephone conversations on this sort of interesting but useless (to us) information. Keeps the old neurons hopping. Other good books you might find interesting are "Germs, Guns, and Steel" and "Collapse" by Jonathan Diamond, interesting theories of why we are where we are as a civilization. EDS

[Kris Krieger]

"EDS" wrote in news:p5udnStuMKM8X3janZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

I&#39;m not sure whether just looking into books re: architectural history would cover it, either, esp. if it&#39;s a new trend. But it struck me while i was looking through the website of Calatreva as a follow-up to a reference made by someone on this newsgroup. And I started thinking baout other work that I like or find interesting, and that got me wondering about how styles (over the past couple decades) might or might not "cluster", and that idea just occured to me, that it seems as tho&#39; mature cultures seems to be less "traditional" in many ways.

Now,there you have me ;) Only I need to partner with someone who can write characters - I totally stink at "doing characters"!

Seriously, tho&#39;, aside from "The FOuntainhead", is there any literature which has ARchitecture (and related sociocultural matters) as its central theme...?

I&#39;ve seen images of some of it. My impression is that a lot of pele would cite the recent influx of money, but it&#39;s got to be much more than that - after all, why is it that, in some places, the influx of money leads to tacky McMansions, but in other areas, leads to innovative and fascinating architecture? What does the difference say about society?

((Would those questions even be of much interest, or am I wasting my brain- space... ... ))

I&#39;m going to have to mull that over a bit, let it percolate so to speak. It&#39;s a fascinating idea.

Perhaps related - I&#39;ve seen a little bit (models and sketches) by some different futurists here and there (books, documentaries, etc.), so I have to let your interesting idea mix in with that.

If nothing else, I certainly *like* it a heck of a lot better than the whole "post apocalyptic brutality" theory of the future ;)

But I do have to say that, if any sort of "new Rennaisance" or as you put it, a sort of "New Hellenism", I very highly doubt that it will come out of North America, or at least, from teh US - it seems to me that the US&#39;s "moment" or turning point has come and gone, and Americans are in a mindset that&#39; a weird combination of narcissism, and "digin in the heels", i.e. not merely conservatism (keeping the status-quo) but reactionism (trying to turn back the clock), the problem being that what a lot of people imagine is "the way things were", is actually "what people wish the way things were".

A few weeks ago, ther ewas a discussion in this grou regarding individuality and what I suppose one might be able to call a sort of "kibbutzism" - both have positives, but as with anything, taking eitehr to an extreme is a negative. It seems to me that what we have in the US today is not individualism, not a belief/confidence in individuality, but rather, a weird colloidal mix of narcissim and groupthink/tribalism.

I think part of what&#39;s ahppening is tat, as tribalism&#39;s negative side expands (gangs, criminal organizations), people who are not

I read excerpts but I can&#39;t recall having read the whole thing.

That&#39;s one way of putting it - I like your description much better than "scatterbrained loony"

;)

Sometimes it&#39;s pretty hard on the ego, tho&#39; in that it&#39;s personally risky to reach out and try to grasp new ideas, because it means one ends up in serious disagreements with more and more people, esp. when those new ideas/new information questions long-held beliefs and/or long-standing power structures. It can be tiring, sometimes even exhausting, to put up with so frequently being called, directy or via implication, guano-for- brains, because of questioning that which many or sometimes even most people believe. Which is why, as I age, I&#39;m becomeing a *crotchety* old fart

Cool! As for useless, is it less useful than talking about Brittany&#39;s lack of underwear or Paris&#39; latest foolishness? Really, all of that is "bread &#39;n&#39; circuses". Except today, it&#39;s Donuts &#39;n&#39; PopTube (or for the snootier types, Croissants).

Whcih sort-of ties back into a REactionary mindset - to look towards the futture, epole have to look outwards - i.e. look away from the Home Shopping Channel, and then open the blinds and look outside their own cacoons. How often has it been said that AMericans are "cacooning"? Well, unfortunately, innovative solutions to problems are not solved by everyone pupating - after all, part of they psychology of cacooning is to *not look at* problems. Which in turn is tied into the fact that complex human problems aren&#39;t solved by a person, but by people. So individuals feel overwhelmed, helpless, and therefre, withdraw, cacoon.

So maybe that&#39;s reflected in architecture?

Like, think of castles and associated villages - that refelcts not only the uinsecurity of htt age, but also, the social structure and cultural attitudes.

Thre is an interaction - architecture does influence peole, but culture influences architecture, if only because one person can&#39;t create architecture - it might be one person&#39;s vision, but the achievement of it takes, not a person, but people, plural. If a People/Nation has a group psychology that looks backwards, tehn a person whose vision looks forward is not going to have what is necessary (funding, official aproval or permission) to create a forward-looking architecture...

Well, that&#39;s pretty rouch, mostly off the top of my head becasue this idea ony occurred to me recently. But maybe it&#39;s of some minor interest ;)

That they do, sometimes too much for my own good

Cool, thanks - here is the Amazon.com link, in case anyone else would like it:

((THe advantage of using my credit cards rather than cash or checks: it&#39;s paid off every month anyway, and I accumulate points that I can then convert into all these nifty Amazon.com gift certificates ;) ))