architecture at this moments isn’t solving any question, there is no questioning, every single aspect achieved got established, got a fact, worst than when the MoMo invented design, now the establishment belongs not to the intellect of some schools or personalities, now it does belong to politics the which follow the market
the question in the schools, are easy, always solvable, always inside the system so you will be freely to respond, because you can respond, they are meant for you to respond to it/them, you might be, even experimental-although this is not what is happening at this moment in any school, at least that I know- even radical, not happening in many of the students that are taking the lessons as established rules to follow, the questioning is not coming from critics to old systems, the critics are based on ideals of success or impositions of radicalisms or its real name, eclectisms-small pieces of- more and more eclecticisms-small pieces of-
the questions outside the school, are non solvable because they carry on the issue of ”reality/realistic” when you approach them, the typ(rad)icality of the piece has to be produce with the established parameters but it needs the rupture to become success /the more rupture, even if it doesn’t solve anything will carry the higher success/
it is the figure of the architect still alive? it is there possible to produce architecture?
very sad news!
I learned architecture here, just looking at the images sometimes getting a bit obsessed with them
I could not understand the texts even I read them so many times! when I was 19
What I enjoyed the most was that sensation of support I found in this blog when I was studying architecture in Cuba, where people could not understand that architecture is something very profound
I say that I don’t belong to any school but if I have to name one it is:
Thank you Prof Woods
this is the best school of architecture one student can have in this moment!! we can discuss a lot about this idea…
a/c is another form of enclosure for society and architecture/better architects/ supports it-architecture should loose all it’s relation with enclosure- reducing it to the most needed elements to maintain the act of living
in forms of enclosure
I don’t agree with the use of a/c in a high rise building for spaces like the parking to cargo/uncargo supplies.
Architecture should find the openness to provide one adequate atmosphere inside itself not with additions to the main structure. Architecture has to be open.
In order to do so, the air conditioner must increase its power consumption by the inverse of its “efficiency” (coefficient of performance) times the amount of power dissipated into the system. As an example, assume that inside the closed system a 100 W heating element is activated, and the air conditioner has an coefficient of performance of 200%. The air conditioner’s power consumption will increase by 50 W to compensate for this, thus making the 100 W heating element cost a total of 150 W of power.
in ancient Egypt where reeds hung in windows had water trickling down. The evaporation of water cooled the air blowing through the window, though this process also made the air more humid. In Ancient Rome, water from aqueducts was circulated through the walls of certain houses to cool them down. Other techniques in medieval Persia involved the use of cisterns and wind towers to cool buildings during the hot season. Modern air conditioning emerged from advances in chemistry during the 19th century, and the first large-scale electrical air conditioning was invented and used in 1911 by Willis Haviland Carrier.