| Michael Bulatovich 2008-01-31, 9:25 pm |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:fntuna09o6@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13q4io4oj5i06da@corp.supernews.com...
>
> 45's I can deal with, when applicable, but the one that always grates me
> is the weird angle.
> You've seen em, where the building is going along fine and then out of
> nowhere the whole thing gets cocked at an 11 degree angle for no apparent
> reason.
> Now in plan view you might think that there was some sort of site
> requirement for it, but under further investigation there is none.
> Its like all at once the designer, and I use that term loosely here, had a
> brain fritz for a moment, then regrouped and carried on like nothing ever
> happened.
> I'm serious man, the stuff looks ridiculous and it happens alot,
> especially in commercial applications.
> Besides, angling a major portion of a building is an enormously expensive
> way to deal with a site issue.
> I won't get into the details of why it is expensive other than to say that
> every material and every person working on the job has to deal with it,
> and its a major break in the rhythm of the thing.
> I was looking at that firestation that female Iraqi architect has been
> bragging about and its downright embarrassing the amount of weird angles
> she used in that thing. That structure cost 10 times more than it should
> have because her design experience and contruction knowledge are at the
> bare minimum
That assessment is based on your personal knowledge of Zaha? If not, perhaps
it's this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundam...tribution_error
Oddly, that page was cited in another thread with KK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocr...gy_of_hypocrisy
|