China Thread

#301
#301
I'm not a design guru, but some of those building plans look like they were stolen from the '60s Soviet archives.
 
#302
#302
Velo Vol said:
I'm not a design guru, but some of those building plans look like they were stolen from the '60s Soviet archives.
Click to expand...

I am, they probably were. concrete block on concrete slab with metal windows. cheap, mass produced, relatively maintenance free, but crappy place to live.
 
#303
#303
Architecture scholars maintain that the best example of mid-Soviet era architecture can be found in the example of McClung Tower on the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, campus.
 
#304
#304
volprof said:
Architecture scholars maintain that the best example of mid-Soviet era architecture can be found in the example of McClung Tower on the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, campus.
Click to expand...

Humanities and Social Sciences Building is exhibit A.
 
#305
#305
Velo Vol said:
Humanities and Social Sciences Building is exhibit A.
Click to expand...

When it was built in the early to mid-60s, Kruschev claimed that it was an example of worldwide Soviet influence, even in the bastion of pig capitalism, the United States of America.
 
#308
#308
volprof said:
Indeed.

On another note, I've noticed Pacer has been absent from the forum for a few days.

Must be at the Yulin Dog Festival.
Click to expand...

He's in the Charleston/Confederate threads agreeing with the Confederacy apologists.

Some great ally they've found.
 
#310
#310
LouderVol said:
it always pissed us off that the school never hit up their top 25 architecture program to get their opinion on stuff. (alumn of said program)
Click to expand...

It's a lesson UT still hasn't learned.

Natalie-L-Haslam-Music-Center.jpg
 
#311
#311
agent|orange said:
It's a lesson UT still hasn't learned.

Natalie-L-Haslam-Music-Center.jpg
Click to expand...

Compared to the Humanities Campus, that's pretty nice. Unless you count Hodges' as Humanities Campus, in which case, Hodges' rules. While Hodges' brickwork could have been a bit better, the Mesopotamian design is good stuff.
 
#312
#312
agent|orange said:
It's a lesson UT still hasn't learned.

Natalie-L-Haslam-Music-Center.jpg
Click to expand...

too bad the students love the design of this. and I could go into a 5 page speel about how this is the best architectural building on campus. no, where they really messed up was with the monstrosity behind it.
174_7404726_ver1.0_640_480.jpg
 
#314
#314
For my money, the best example of architecture on UT's campus is Neyland Stadium. Why? I'm not quite sure.

As for campus buildings, the go-to answer would be Ayres. Of course it's the nicest. It's the academic symbol of the university.

I still roll with Hodges' though for some unconventional architectural fun.
 
#315
#315
And Louder, you may be an architect (I'm assuming), but, compared to what was there before, I think our new dorm designs are pretty good.

I mean, they're dorms, for godssakes. It's not like there's a whole lot you can do with them.
 
#316
#316
Velo Vol said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

because we could actually put into words why their ideas sucked, and could even get them to admit it. so instead of dealing with how bad their ideas were they decided instead to stop listening to the people who made them feel stupid.
 
#317
#317
I just don't understand why UT couldn't just... model every building after Ayers Hall like the Law School did.

And I think the thing that drives me up a wall about the Music building are the off-set green panels. That just screams 1970s to me. Had that just been standard glass panes, it'd look much better.
 
#318
#318
volprof said:
For my money, the best example of architecture on UT's campus is Neyland Stadium. Why? I'm not quite sure.

As for campus buildings, the go-to answer would be Ayres. Of course it's the nicest. It's the academic symbol of the university.

I still roll with Hodges' though for some unconventional architectural fun.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about pre-renovation Neyland or post-renovation?
 
#319
#319
volprof said:
And Louder, you may be an architect (I'm assuming), but, compared to what was there before, I think our new dorm designs are pretty good.

I mean, they're dorms, for godssakes. It's not like there's a whole lot you can do with them.
Click to expand...

not an architect yet, no license. as far as better looking buildings I completely disagree, and no you don't have to spend buckets of money to do it. the interiors function much much better, no doubt there, but the exterior is offensive on many levels.
 
#320
#320
LouderVol said:
not an architect yet, no license. as far as better looking buildings I completely disagree, and no you don't have to spend buckets of money to do it. the interiors function much much better, no doubt there, but the exterior is offensive on many levels.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate on what is offensive about them?

I'm honestly curious and am not looking at this from a mindset of an educated person on architecture.
 
#321
#321
agent|orange said:
Care to elaborate on what is offensive about them?

I'm honestly curious and am not looking at this from a mindset of an educated person on architecture.
Click to expand...

take the new dorm i posted a picture of. Except for the towers McClung and Morril (maybe Andy Holt though that is being torn down soon) it is easily the biggest building on that side of campus. It is also incredibly long. it is close to Andy Holt road and the pedestrian walk. 1. as such it looms over it and tends to make people feel small next to it. the architect attempts to fix this with the concrete banding you see over the windows, breaking it down into floors is a visual trick to descale the building. 2. its ground floor does nothing to interact with the people walking past it, except for the entrance. Again people have a hard time associating with it because it doesn't engage them, the bottom floor is the same as the top, nothing is done in that manner to break up the scale, again. 3. even though the style of the gables is meant to echo other buildings on campus there are no buildings near it that have that style. so by fitting in it actually stands out. and even with the style it is copying the front facing gables over the elevator wings are inconsistent with the original style intent. 4. the color of the brick and grey window panels clash, this is my personal, yet professional opinion. 5. the paneling in the window is either a cheap, and failed imo, attempt to represent the 'T' or I don't know quite what. either way it is ugly and again does nothing to acknowledge that people live in those units. 6. with the large size variations should have been a key design feature to break it up. different window sizes in the rooms vs bathrooms or hallways, yet you only see the same size from the outside. again this makes it feel very impersonal and repetitive. 7. I am of the belief that you design a building based on the time it was built, acknowledging the use of modern materials and methods of construction. Having seen the structure I know they can easily span greater openings than what they are, this was likely done to minimize cost, but in that case why use the modern methods of construction (building codes). to me it is a wasted opportunity. 8. the very style it is copying is not the same typology of the intended use. Ayres and educational vs that thing and Residential. 9. the lack of details, one of the things that makes the Neo-gothic-Educational style is the level of details you get (checkerboard brick patterns, "gargoyles" etc etc) none of these decorations are found on the building, again suggesting the modern nature of the building but still using an older language.

I have run out of time or else I would go into how each of these, and several others could easily, and relatively cheaply, been resolved.
 
#322
#322
LouderVol said:
because we could actually put into words why their ideas sucked, and could even get them to admit it. so instead of dealing with how bad their ideas were they decided instead to stop listening to the people who made them feel stupid.
Click to expand...

Who is they?
 
#323
#323
LouderVol said:
take the new dorm i posted a picture of. Except for the towers McClung and Morril (maybe Andy Holt though that is being torn down soon) it is easily the biggest building on that side of campus. It is also incredibly long. it is close to Andy Holt road and the pedestrian walk. 1. as such it looms over it and tends to make people feel small next to it. the architect attempts to fix this with the concrete banding you see over the windows, breaking it down into floors is a visual trick to descale the building. 2. its ground floor does nothing to interact with the people walking past it, except for the entrance. Again people have a hard time associating with it because it doesn't engage them, the bottom floor is the same as the top, nothing is done in that manner to break up the scale, again. 3. even though the style of the gables is meant to echo other buildings on campus there are no buildings near it that have that style. so by fitting in it actually stands out. and even with the style it is copying the front facing gables over the elevator wings are inconsistent with the original style intent. 4. the color of the brick and grey window panels clash, this is my personal, yet professional opinion. 5. the paneling in the window is either a cheap, and failed imo, attempt to represent the 'T' or I don't know quite what. either way it is ugly and again does nothing to acknowledge that people live in those units. 6. with the large size variations should have been a key design feature to break it up. different window sizes in the rooms vs bathrooms or hallways, yet you only see the same size from the outside. again this makes it feel very impersonal and repetitive. 7. I am of the belief that you design a building based on the time it was built, acknowledging the use of modern materials and methods of construction. Having seen the structure I know they can easily span greater openings than what they are, this was likely done to minimize cost, but in that case why use the modern methods of construction (building codes). to me it is a wasted opportunity. 8. the very style it is copying is not the same typology of the intended use. Ayres and educational vs that thing and Residential. 9. the lack of details, one of the things that makes the Neo-gothic-Educational style is the level of details you get (checkerboard brick patterns, "gargoyles" etc etc) none of these decorations are found on the building, again suggesting the modern nature of the building but still using an older language.

I have run out of time or else I would go into how each of these, and several others could easily, and relatively cheaply, been resolved.
Click to expand...

Really interesting stuff.

I find myself as a casual fan of architecture as my wife and I can spend days just walking around admiring New Orleans.
 
#325
#325
Obsessed said:
Admit it....

Yall were lost.... :)
Click to expand...

I got lost around the concrete band and the top and bottom floors being identical. I'm sure it's completely valid but it's architect shop-talk... I think he's saying it was a quickly and thoughtlessly designed building that didn't fit what a residential unit should be?

I think he was saying it was soul-less and drab. I think.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top