|
Home > Archive > Architecture > October 2006 > Okay to have different window styles?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Okay to have different window styles?
|
|
| Sasquatch 2006-10-05, 9:25 am |
| Is it okay to mix different window styles? Our house we're building
has all double-hung windows, but some are 6-over-6 panes and some are
9-over-9 panes. Is that a no-no? Looks alright to me, but I want to
make sure we're not breaking some kind of "rule." I know there are no
"rules," but still. Here's a link so you can see what I mean:
http://www.mynewoldhouse.com/house/...levationLRG.gif
Also, when you look at the front elevation referenced above, do you
think it would look better with 24" high railings instead of 36" high?
We don't have to do 36" according to code since our porch floor is less
than 2 feet off the ground. If we do 24" railings, do you think it
would look good to move the window sills up to 24"? Currently the
rough opening is 12" off the ground, which I'm starting to realize will
be inconvenient for things like end tables. But mostly I want to do
what looks good. But I can't decide. I need some input. Please help.
Thanks,
John
| |
|
| On 05 Oct 2006, Sasquatch wrote
> Is it okay to mix different window styles? Our house we're
> building has all double-hung windows, but some are 6-over-6
> panes and some are 9-over-9 panes. Is that a no-no? Looks
> alright to me, but I want to make sure we're not breaking some
> kind of "rule." I know there are no "rules," but still.
> Here's a link so you can see what I mean:
>
> http://www.mynewoldhouse.com/house/...levationLRG.gif
You're safe: it was normal in Georgian design to use graduated
window sizes -- getting smaller on the upper floors, as in this
design -- and to have fewer panes in the smaller windows.
Like this, of around 1730, which goes 15-12-6 on
ground/first/second:
http://www.whhvs.webhop.net/temp/SaffronWalden.jpg
> Also, when you look at the front elevation referenced above,
> do you think it would look better with 24" high railings
> instead of 36" high? We don't have to do 36" according to code
> since our porch floor is less than 2 feet off the ground. If
> we do 24" railings, do you think it would look good to move
> the window sills up to 24"? Currently the rough opening is
> 12" off the ground, which I'm starting to realize will be
> inconvenient for things like end tables.
I'll leave advice on that to others, but if reducing the height
of the ground-floor windows makes them about the same size as the
first-floor ones, you should probably reduce the number of panes
in the re-sized lower windows.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
For e-mail, change harvey to harvey.van
| |
|
|
"Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160058272.595738.52480@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
> Is it okay to mix different window styles? Our house
> we're building has all double-hung windows, but some are
> 6-over-6 panes and some are 9-over-9 panes. Is that a
> no-no? Looks alright to me, but I want to make sure
> we're not breaking some kind of "rule." I know there are
> no "rules," but still. Here's a link so you can see what
> I mean:
>
> http://www.mynewoldhouse.com/house/...levationLRG.gif
>
Looks good to me. The lower windows being taller NEED extra
lights. The normal configuration would be 6 over 9 in like
circumstances but 9 over 9 look just fine to me. To look more
uniform I would go with the 6/9 but It *is your* house. If the
lower ones go all the way to the floor, doesn't look like it, then
9/9 would be the right configuration anyway. PS 9/9 harder to
wash though.
I would leave the rail as is. Looks good and no one is going to
trip over it although your fat relatives will sit on it so make it
strong. 
> Also, when you look at the front elevation referenced
> above, do you think it would look better with 24" high
> railings instead of 36" high? We don't have to do 36"
> according to code since our porch floor is less than 2
> feet off the ground. If we do 24" railings, do you think
> it would look good to move the window sills up to 24"?
> Currently the rough opening is 12" off the ground, which
> I'm starting to realize will be inconvenient for things
> like end tables. But mostly I want to do what looks
> good. But I can't decide. I need some input. Please
> help.
>
> Thanks,
> John
| |
| Dezignaré 2006-10-05, 1:25 pm |
|
"Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160058272.595738.52480@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Is it okay to mix different window styles? Our house we're building
> has all double-hung windows, but some are 6-over-6 panes and some are
> 9-over-9 panes. Is that a no-no? Looks alright to me, but I want to
> make sure we're not breaking some kind of "rule." I know there are no
> "rules," but still. Here's a link so you can see what I mean:
>
> http://www.mynewoldhouse.com/house/...levationLRG.gif
>
> Also, when you look at the front elevation referenced above, do you
> think it would look better with 24" high railings instead of 36" high?
> We don't have to do 36" according to code since our porch floor is less
> than 2 feet off the ground. If we do 24" railings, do you think it
> would look good to move the window sills up to 24"? Currently the
> rough opening is 12" off the ground, which I'm starting to realize will
> be inconvenient for things like end tables. But mostly I want to do
> what looks good. But I can't decide. I need some input. Please help.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
The windows and railing look fine. But, couldn't you carry the rock up to
the second floor around the arched window? This would make for a grander
entrance. Dezignare'
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-10-05, 1:25 pm |
|
Sasquatch wrote:
....
> http://www.mynewoldhouse.com/house/...levationLRG.gif
>
> Also, when you look at the front elevation referenced above, do you
> think it would look better with 24" high railings instead of 36" high?
> We don't have to do 36" according to code since our porch floor is less
> than 2 feet off the ground. If we do 24" railings, do you think it
> would look good to move the window sills up to 24"? Currently the
> rough opening is 12" off the ground, which I'm starting to realize will
> be inconvenient for things like end tables. But mostly I want to do
> what looks good. But I can't decide. I need some input. Please help.
> Thanks,
> John
Consider if want chairs on your front porch?
How much of the back of chairs do you want
to see through your windows?
You may want to choose your porch furniture
and spec around that.
If you like low chairs then go a low railing,
so you can see over it easily.
Ken
| |
|
|
"Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160058272.595738.52480@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Is it okay to mix different window styles? Our house we're building
> has all double-hung windows, but some are 6-over-6 panes and some are
> 9-over-9 panes. Is that a no-no? Looks alright to me, but I want to
> make sure we're not breaking some kind of "rule." I know there are no
> "rules," but still. Here's a link so you can see what I mean:
>
> http://www.mynewoldhouse.com/house/...levationLRG.gif
>
> Also, when you look at the front elevation referenced above, do you
> think it would look better with 24" high railings instead of 36" high?
> We don't have to do 36" according to code since our porch floor is less
> than 2 feet off the ground. If we do 24" railings, do you think it
> would look good to move the window sills up to 24"? Currently the
> rough opening is 12" off the ground, which I'm starting to realize will
> be inconvenient for things like end tables. But mostly I want to do
> what looks good. But I can't decide. I need some input. Please help.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
The panes of the window are just fine. doing ti any other way would not be
normal or look good.
Railing: Do not even consider using a 24" high railing. That would be an
abomination.
jojo
| |
| Jude Alexander 2006-10-05, 1:25 pm |
|
"Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160058272.595738.52480@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Is it okay to mix different window styles? Our house we're building
> has all double-hung windows, but some are 6-over-6 panes and some are
> 9-over-9 panes. Is that a no-no? Looks alright to me, but I want to
> make sure we're not breaking some kind of "rule." I know there are no
> "rules," but still. Here's a link so you can see what I mean:
>
> http://www.mynewoldhouse.com/house/...levationLRG.gif
>
> Also, when you look at the front elevation referenced above, do you
> think it would look better with 24" high railings instead of 36" high?
> We don't have to do 36" according to code since our porch floor is less
> than 2 feet off the ground. If we do 24" railings, do you think it
> would look good to move the window sills up to 24"? Currently the
> rough opening is 12" off the ground, which I'm starting to realize will
> be inconvenient for things like end tables. But mostly I want to do
> what looks good. But I can't decide. I need some input. Please help.
>
> Thanks,
> John
What you may have failed to notice is that the approx. size of each division
(panes) is the same size WITH the two different lights over lights from
bottom floor and top floor.
Also worth mentioning is that all things artistic, it's a matter of taste.
Many are ruled by what has been done before but that is not a necessity.
Having said that, though, it seems that most people are ruled by tradition
(what is expected) and don't like to veer off the beaten path too much.
| |
| Jude Alexander 2006-10-05, 1:25 pm |
|
"Dezignaré" <info@dezignare.com> wrote in message
news:Nl9Vg.28373$DU3.10696@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160058272.595738.52480@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> The windows and railing look fine. But, couldn't you carry the rock up to
> the second floor around the arched window? This would make for a grander
> entrance. Dezignare'
I agree that is a good idea and would punctuate the entrance much better.
| |
|
|
"Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160058272.595738.52480@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Is it okay to mix different window styles? Our house we're building
> has all double-hung windows, but some are 6-over-6 panes and some are
> 9-over-9 panes. Is that a no-no? Looks alright to me, but I want to
> make sure we're not breaking some kind of "rule." I know there are no
> "rules," but still. Here's a link so you can see what I mean:
>
> http://www.mynewoldhouse.com/house/...levationLRG.gif
>
> Also, when you look at the front elevation referenced above, do you
> think it would look better with 24" high railings instead of 36" high?
> We don't have to do 36" according to code since our porch floor is less
> than 2 feet off the ground. If we do 24" railings, do you think it
> would look good to move the window sills up to 24"? Currently the
> rough opening is 12" off the ground, which I'm starting to realize will
> be inconvenient for things like end tables. But mostly I want to do
> what looks good. But I can't decide. I need some input. Please help.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
The individual lite size should be consistent, regardless of overall window
width and height.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-10-05, 5:25 pm |
| On Oct 5, 12:24 pm, "Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Also worth mentioning is that all things artistic, it's a matter of taste.
> Many are ruled by what has been done before but that is not a necessity.
> Having said that, though, it seems that most people are ruled by tradition
> (what is expected) and don't like to veer off the beaten path too much.
The OP has a different take on the matter. He studied up on the
traditional - so he knows all about that, hired a designer - why he
pays someone he doesn't trust, I don't know, and decided the best way
to make up his mind on what he likes is to ask random people on the
internet. He also asks the same question in several different groups -
I suppose in the hopes of catching that one opinion in a million that
will make up his mind for him.
It's a curious melding of scientific method and zen indecision.
R
| |
| Jude Alexander 2006-10-05, 5:25 pm |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1160077393.707072.181010@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 5, 12:24 pm, "Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com>
> wrote:
>
> The OP has a different take on the matter. He studied up on the
> traditional - so he knows all about that, hired a designer - why he
> pays someone he doesn't trust, I don't know, and decided the best way
> to make up his mind on what he likes is to ask random people on the
> internet. He also asks the same question in several different groups -
> I suppose in the hopes of catching that one opinion in a million that
> will make up his mind for him.
>
> It's a curious melding of scientific method and zen indecision.
>
> R
I agree. He's been posting for some time and I the house in the process of
being built. There are at least 3 serious issues with the layout of the
floor plan. I have no problem with people wanting a particular style. I
was taught to care & I did for a long time but the reality is that if we
didn't have these types of ordinary homes for people who can't afford an
original design from scratch, we wouldn't have a business so I look for
other parts of design to get my feeling of satisfcation rather than the
pleasure of personal design, i.e. make every square foot/inch count (for the
poorest of my clients), good rational plan, cover all the bases to insure
the house meets the needs of the clients amap give their own $ constraints.
All said because I wouldn't have minded doing this house but I surely would
have corrected the weaknesses in the plan and kept at him for resale. I
come across people all the time, who want to customize their house to the
point of being of less and less appealing for resale. One such place was
the entry into the M.BR. straight from the open dining/den/kitchen area with
no privacy turn, only one w.i.c. small m. bath in such a house with just a
shower and no garden tub/whirlpool/jacuzzi, i.e. several wasteful
configurations of space. Bottom line: He was asking questions concerning
the design when the drawings had already been approved. All opinion and fact
gathering should be done prior to preliminary approval.
| |
|
| What do you know!
How's it goin' Don?
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:eg3hab01rrf@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Sasquatch" <linux4all@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160058272.595738.52480@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> The individual lite size should be consistent, regardless of overall
> window width and height.
>
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-10-05, 8:25 pm |
| "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
news:1160077393.707072.181010@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 5, 12:24 pm, "Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com>
> wrote:
>
> The OP has a different take on the matter. He studied up on the
> traditional - so he knows all about that, hired a designer - why he
> pays someone he doesn't trust, I don't know, and decided the best way
> to make up his mind on what he likes is to ask random people on the
> internet.
Well, of course! Isn't that how things are supposed to be done these
days? How can anyone know what do do, if other people don't tell them
what they "should" do? Certainly you *cannot* be suggesting that taste,
common sense, or (heaven forbid!) morality are matter of individual
character - nowadays, people know better and realize that such things
are matters of social consensus! So I'm sure you would not suggest that
anyone abdicate their duty to society and actually decide such important
matters as lowly, lonely, insignificant *individuals* - that would be in
such bad taste!
> He also asks the same question in several different groups
> - I suppose in the hopes of catching that one opinion in a million
> that will make up his mind for him.
>
> It's a curious melding of scientific method and zen indecision.
>
> R
>
But it's the million that matter these days - certainly you *must*
realize that! After all, as the saying is always worded, "Ten thousand
people can't be wrong!"
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-10-05, 8:25 pm |
| "Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com> wrote in
news:aNdVg.47699$vX5.902@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
>
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1160077393.707072.181010@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I agree. He's been posting for some time and I the house in the
> process of being built. There are at least 3 serious issues with the
> layout of the floor plan. I have no problem with people wanting a
> particular style. I was taught to care & I did for a long time but
> the reality is that if we didn't have these types of ordinary homes
> for people who can't afford an original design from scratch, we
> wouldn't have a business
The important point is that modesty (in size and price) does not
automatically rule out decent design (which includes
efficiency/useability).
When decent design is eliminated from modest homes, it's a deliberate
choice, not a given.
> so I look for other parts of design to get my
> feeling of satisfcation rather than the pleasure of personal design,
> i.e. make every square foot/inch count (for the poorest of my
> clients), good rational plan, cover all the bases to insure the house
> meets the needs of the clients amap give their own $ constraints.
All of which IMO are of fundamental importance. The "face" (style) is
the easiest thing to tweak. But if rooms are too small, or doors and
windows are in places that leave no place for any furniture, and so on,
and so forth, well, the face will end up being largely irrelevant...
You can put the most beautiful fabric you want over a packing crate, but
it'd still be a packing crate.
If anything, I would think that modest homes would be an eve greater
challenge than luxury-sized homes, because it is *not* easy to create a
structure that is both efficient and attractive, AND modest in size -
takes a lor of planning and thinking and sketching and so on.
> All
> said because I wouldn't have minded doing this house but I surely
> would have corrected the weaknesses in the plan and kept at him for
> resale. I come across people all the time, who want to customize
> their house to the point of being of less and less appealing for
> resale. One such place was the entry into the M.BR. straight from the
> open dining/den/kitchen area with no privacy turn, only one w.i.c.
> small m. bath in such a house with just a shower and no garden
> tub/whirlpool/jacuzzi, i.e. several wasteful configurations of space.
> Bottom line: He was asking questions concerning the design when the
> drawings had already been approved. All opinion and fact gathering
> should be done prior to preliminary approval.
>
Yup. And the just rejecting the solicited suggestions. Like, "Well,
that entry right from the LR to the MBR is there for a *reason*". Well,
fine, it's his reason, and I didn't agree with it - but it's not my
house, nor would it *ever* be, but the point is, Why ask for
alternatives and suggestions, and then only argue that "things were done
like this for a reason"? AND after the place is basically finished,
approved, and as I understand it, well along in construction? That's
what I couldn't figure out - and got tired of.
| |
|
| "Jude Alexander"> wrote
Bottom line: He was asking questions concerning
> the design when the drawings had already been approved. All opinion and
> fact gathering should be done prior to preliminary approval.
The real bottom line is the customer/client should get what he wants.
Nothing is static and the only constant is change.
Sometimes, er, many times things look different in person than on paper.
What I'm seeing here is a customer/client that is more concerned with what
other people think about his house than what he thinks of it himself.
Damn form, double damn function and to hell with balance, rhyme and reason.
Its tantamount to a snake chasing its tail for he will never please ALL of
his friends and family and he'll never be pleased himself.
There are no questions, only answers......
| |
|
| Fuckin democrats....arrrrr....
LOL, going good JD, long time no hear.
Hope all is well!
"JD" <laughingarchitect@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SufVg.19819$Ij.8806@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> What do you know!
>
>
>
>
> How's it goin' Don?
>
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:eg3hab01rrf@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>
| |
| Jude Alexander 2006-10-05, 9:25 pm |
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:kKgVg.7681$o71.1709@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com> wrote in
> news:aNdVg.47699$vX5.902@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
>
>
> The important point is that modesty (in size and price) does not
> automatically rule out decent design (which includes
> efficiency/useability).
>
> When decent design is eliminated from modest homes, it's a deliberate
> choice, not a given.
>
>
>
> All of which IMO are of fundamental importance. The "face" (style) is
> the easiest thing to tweak. But if rooms are too small, or doors and
> windows are in places that leave no place for any furniture, and so on,
> and so forth, well, the face will end up being largely irrelevant...
> You can put the most beautiful fabric you want over a packing crate, but
> it'd still be a packing crate.
>
> If anything, I would think that modest homes would be an eve greater
> challenge than luxury-sized homes, because it is *not* easy to create a
> structure that is both efficient and attractive, AND modest in size -
> takes a lor of planning and thinking and sketching and so on.
>
>
> Yup. And the just rejecting the solicited suggestions. Like, "Well,
> that entry right from the LR to the MBR is there for a *reason*". Well,
> fine, it's his reason, and I didn't agree with it - but it's not my
> house, nor would it *ever* be, but the point is, Why ask for
> alternatives and suggestions, and then only argue that "things were done
> like this for a reason"? AND after the place is basically finished,
> approved, and as I understand it, well along in construction? That's
> what I couldn't figure out - and got tired of.
A lot of people do that. They really don't want someone's opinion, and
won't listen no matter how good the advice. You can see it in their faces
that they're looking for a reason to not even consider. Their mind was
already made up in the first place... before the request for advice.
They're hoping for support of their decisions and/or praise of their
decisions.
| |
|
|
Kris Krieger wrote:
> "Jude Alexander" <Cajun@middle of the swamp.com> wrote in
> news:aNdVg.47699$vX5.902@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
>
>
> The important point is that modesty (in size and price) does not
> automatically rule out decent design (which includes
> efficiency/useability).
>
> When decent design is eliminated from modest homes, it's a deliberate
> choice, not a given.
>
>
>
> All of which IMO are of fundamental importance. The "face" (style) is
> the easiest thing to tweak. But if rooms are too small, or doors and
> windows are in places that leave no place for any furniture, and so on,
> and so forth, well, the face will end up being largely irrelevant...
> You can put the most beautiful fabric you want over a packing crate, but
> it'd still be a packing crate.
>
> If anything, I would think that modest homes would be an eve greater
> challenge than luxury-sized homes, because it is *not* easy to create a
> structure that is both efficient and attractive, AND modest in size -
> takes a lor of planning and thinking and sketching and so on.
I work in the realm of affordable, multifamily housing so I have a
different slant on things. I agree that modest homes are probably the
hardest. It's hard to make something inexpensive yet nice; small yet
functional; utilitarian yet attractive. We've recently switched from
8-plexes to 4-plexes to be more attractive, but it's more expensive.
Go design an affordable apartment and you've earned your keep.
Our process in horrible. It goes budget, architect, budget,
contractor, architect, budget, contractor, architect, budget, etc.
until we all fall over, dead. But in the end we can bring in a small
2-bedroom for about $125,000 including soft costs, reserves, etc. Our
construction cost is about $85,000/unit (or under $100/s.f.).
So we explore new building techniques, etc. We are starting work on
financing a mid-rise. Oh, the debates we will have on structural
systems. We need to be in the $140/s.f. range to make it happen but
concrete and steel is outrageous. P.I.P. went out the window a long
time ago. Tubular steel seems like a possibility. I don't know, but I
have confidence that they'll work something out. Affordable stuff is
hard because of the budget constraints.
>
>
> Yup. And the just rejecting the solicited suggestions. Like, "Well,
> that entry right from the LR to the MBR is there for a *reason*". Well,
> fine, it's his reason, and I didn't agree with it - but it's not my
> house, nor would it *ever* be, but the point is, Why ask for
> alternatives and suggestions, and then only argue that "things were done
> like this for a reason"? AND after the place is basically finished,
> approved, and as I understand it, well along in construction? That's
> what I couldn't figure out - and got tired of.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-10-06, 3:25 am |
| On Oct 5, 9:23 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> The real bottom line is the customer/client should get what he wants.
What sort of crap is that to post on an architecture newsgroup?! The
client exists merely as a whetstone for the architect's ego. The
client's needs and budget be damned.
R
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> "Don"> wrote:
>
> What sort of crap is that to post on an architecture newsgroup?! The
> client exists merely as a whetstone for the architect's ego. The
> client's needs and budget be damned.
"I don't design to have clients, I have clients so I can design, dammit!"
--H. Roarke
Ha!
Anyway, the contractor will build exactly what the client wants regardless
of whats on the plans........
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-10-06, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:eg4b7l01p7h@news1.newsguy.com:
> "Jude Alexander"> wrote
> Bottom line: He was asking questions concerning
>
> The real bottom line is the customer/client should get what he wants.
> Nothing is static and the only constant is change.
> Sometimes, er, many times things look different in person than on
> paper.
>
> What I'm seeing here is a customer/client that is more concerned with
> what other people think about his house than what he thinks of it
> himself.
Except that suggestions are rejected and awkward things are
rationalized. So I don't think there *is* concern with other
parceptions. Jude seems to have it right - seeking approval/support for
what's been done, rather than looking for ideas on how to do it better.
> Damn form, double damn function and to hell with balance,
> rhyme and reason. Its tantamount to a snake chasing its tail for he
> will never please ALL of his friends and family and he'll never be
> pleased himself.
I see it as the opposite.
Not that there aren't a bleep oa a lot of people who, as you describe,
live their entire lives by committee. Just that in this case, it is, as
you noted, a case of:
> There are no questions, only answers......
>
- K.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-10-06, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:eg5hcu0pp5@news1.newsguy.com:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> "I don't design to have clients, I have clients so I can design,
> dammit!" --H. Roarke
>
> Ha!
>
> Anyway, the contractor will build exactly what the client wants
> regardless of whats on the plans........
>
Hmmm, that plus a crusty stubborn client with definite ideas - sounds like
a movie: "Clash of Chitins" arr arr arr
| |
| Warm Worm 2006-10-07, 5:25 pm |
|
"Don"
> "RicodJour"
>
> "I don't design to have clients, I have clients so I can design, dammit!"
> --H. Roarke
>
> Ha!
>
> Anyway, the contractor will build exactly what the client wants regardless
> of whats on the plans........
The trick, or at least ideal, might be to get a compatible client, and
vice-versa.
| |
|
| "Warm Worm"> wrote
> "Don"
>
> The trick, or at least ideal, might be to get a compatible client, and
> vice-versa.
Ideal. HA!
I saw an ideal client one time.
It was in a glossy rag..............
| |
| gruhn@rararchitects.com 2006-10-12, 3:25 am |
| > Here's a link so you can see what I mean:
Keeps the upper story from looking too tall. Helps the building sit
better on the ground. Keeps it from looking like an undesigned piece of
contemporary crap.
| |
| nomail@tampabay.rr.com 2006-10-14, 3:25 am |
| JD alive?
It's DejaView all over again.
brudgers
JD wrote:[color=darkred]
> What do you know!
>
>
>
>
> How's it goin' Don?
>
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:eg3hab01rrf@news2.newsguy.com...
| |
|
| WTF are you up to brudgers?
Did you get a haircut and a real job?
<nomail@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1160794358.098979.311790@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> JD alive?
>
> It's DejaView all over again.
>
> brudgers
>
>
> JD wrote:
>
>
| |
|
| NNTP-Posting-Host: p-746.newsdawg.com
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.architecture:128058 alt.building.construction:167110
"JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:rZNYg.13443$GR.7472@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> WTF are you up to brudgers?
>
> Did you get a haircut and a real job?
LOL
>
> <nomail@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1160794358.098979.311790@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
| |
| Warm Worm 2006-10-16, 5:25 pm |
| NNTP-Posting-Host: group21.vcn.bc.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="Windows-1252";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: luna.vcn.bc.ca 1161034703 29112 207.102.64.85 (16 Oct 2006 21:38:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@vcn.bc.ca
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:38:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.architecture:128065 alt.building.construction:167117
"JD"
> WTF are you up to brudgers?
>
> Did you get a haircut and a real job?
Reminds me of Bush telling Moore in one of his docu's to get a real job.
"...Would you like to swing on a star...
Be a mobile phone or a car...
Or would you rather be a mule?..."
-- Tom Ellard
I'd rather be a mule of course.
> <nomail@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1160794358.098979.311790@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
| |
| nomail@tampabay.rr.com 2006-10-18, 8:25 pm |
|
On Oct 16, 10:57 am, "JD" <laughingarchitectNOS...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> WTF are you up to brudgers?
I'm about up to the structural limit for stacking shit. Same as
always.
>
> Did you get a haircut and a real job?
Haircut? I could be in an airport singing "Hare' Hare' Rama Rama."
Licensure is almost done, and the family is good. Been doing alot of
multi-family the last few years. Beats the hell out of real
architecture
[color=darkred]
>
> <nom...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in messagenews:1160794358.098979.311790@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
|
|
<nomail@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1161215130.152173.285140@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Oct 16, 10:57 am, "JD" <laughingarchitectNOS...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> I'm about up to the structural limit for stacking shit. Same as
> always.
>
>
> Haircut? I could be in an airport singing "Hare' Hare' Rama Rama."
> Licensure is almost done, and the family is good. Been doing alot of
> multi-family the last few years. Beats the hell out of real
> architecture
Good! So you did get a haircut.
Been a long time since I did multi-family. It was fun though. I loved
getting max density with top-notch units, or the beachfront condos. But
that's all ancient history.
I got myself a gig that I'd been seeking for quite a while. I'm running the
design show for a developer. I had hoped it would get me away from those
pesky CD's but it didn't. At least I have people who can do most of that for
me and I hire architects when necessary.
I just wonder how long I'll be able to take churning stuff out. The saving
grace is that I find places to do some real design. A nice TI here and there
is good for the cookie-cutter's soul. Not to mention the occasional side
job.
| |
| nomail@tampabay.rr.com 2006-10-21, 1:25 pm |
| I didn't get a haircut. Grandma just liked to sleep with bald headed
men.
My current job and the one prior were both with the architecture group
of a residential builder/developer. It's a different view of the
world - and though there are still CD's in it, the construction tends
to be simpler which often yields more design time.
Maybe by the time I'm sixty all start to get a handle on this
architecture business.
JD wrote:
> <nomail@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1161215130.152173.285140@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Good! So you did get a haircut.
>
> Been a long time since I did multi-family. It was fun though. I loved
> getting max density with top-notch units, or the beachfront condos. But
> that's all ancient history.
>
> I got myself a gig that I'd been seeking for quite a while. I'm running the
> design show for a developer. I had hoped it would get me away from those
> pesky CD's but it didn't. At least I have people who can do most of that for
> me and I hire architects when necessary.
>
> I just wonder how long I'll be able to take churning stuff out. The saving
> grace is that I find places to do some real design. A nice TI here and there
> is good for the cookie-cutter's soul. Not to mention the occasional side
> job.
|
|
|
|
|