maldini

I like the panoramic "round" views that he designed. Some of the cantilevered hill designs look rather dodgy from an engineering perspective but since I'm not an engineer.... I like the "vistas" that he generated with his glass walls. Not too keen on the walls at odd angle shizzle though. Impractical. As to people living in glass houses.... Either get good drapes, glass that can be electronically turned opaque or darkened (in the market already) or be in shape/wear good clothes and don't do anything that you'll be embarassed about if a camera catches your activities.

That was a really neat find, Ray. Thanks man.

Wow, thats awesome. I wish my house looked something like that!

Do not like the designs, nor the use of materials in this instance. There are many modern, and futuristic designs that seem to be less "strained and cumbersome" in construction then these that are represented. There was a lot of work, and energy that went into these efforts, can appreciate the work and skills needed, but do not like them. For modern design, do like the new pyramid construction in Paris, Los Vegas, and New York. Some of the new modern Art museums in Portugal and LA-The Getty, for example, are very nice too.

Hopefully you're not a fan of the Bauhaus design school: Walter Gropius, Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe with influences by Marcel Breuer and Pietro Belluschi. <I wonder if any relation to.... > I liked the simplicity of some of their designs but they were mostly too brutually stark for my eye. Maybe it was the political climate at the time that influenced their work more than they (we) know. I don't like radical design for radical design's sake. It has to be for a purpose (other than reaction) such as geographical constraints/physical needs/restrictions. To me, good architecture should be a testament to form, function, practicality, ergonomics, conservation, energy viability/conservation and of course be pleasing to the resident's eye. Just a thought.

"To me, good architecture should be a testament to form, function, practicality, ergonomics, conservation, energy viability/conservation and of course be pleasing to the resident's eye. Just a thought." t_b.
______________________________________

Great view t_b, definitely supportive of this vision. Each newly generated work adds to our architectural knowledge, and building expertise, which in turn, is a plus for those that work on future designs, and structures. Yes, do hold with your thoughts that, "Maybe it was the political climate at the time that influenced their work more than they (we) know. I don't like radical design for radical design's sake."

t_b, most definitely agree with your assessment, many of the structures built after, e.g., the revolution in Russia, reflected political dissatisfaction with the older order, and subsequent structures now had to be recast into what the political 'communist' order held was their belief of a new and shining communist future. The little paper hanger in Berlin-Hitler, had the same political stance, that older buildings, and structures that could not be reconverted, or made into state representations that reflected the state's ideas and ideology were leveled, as in the Soviet Union. Hmmm ... Seems that a lot of work was into tearing down buildings, and making statues of leaders-would like a to be on a horse please, next to Roy Rogers too!

"Hubba hubba, what a figure, two more legs and she'll look like Trigger." Heh heh heh. By gar, it IS Trigger. That Roy is riding.

Thanks Df. I've always loved old buildings with their ornate work and craftsmanship. Not too old or too ornate; that then is a reflection of the ego of the planners, the architect or those who proposed the structure. <Manifestation of ego in the corporeal embodiement of self in structure. Boo hiss.>