Architecture 101

[s0978]

Recently a few members have mentioned an interest in Architecture. I can be awfully lazy as a poster, but someone once asked me to provide examples of exemplary works, and this was my response. Just notes really, but I thought this bit of rambling might shed some light on some core kinds of things with which architects concern themselves. So I thought it might be an okay idea for a thread.


Good Architecture:

If I had to pick just one canonical piece for the 20th Century it would be:
LeCorbusier: Villa Savoye (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/Corbu.html)
Not all buildings are Architecture. Architecture results from inquiry about form and function, from really investigating and challenging why a building needs to look and work the way we presuppose. In this case, a house. The date is 1929. Why exactly do we need a pitched roof and window shutters to convey "houseness"? What is the point of applying ornamentation simply for sake of tradition? In this house, the very concept of "dwelling" is re-thought, and the design proposition is a "machine for living." Almost all given assumptions about what a house should look and feel like, from basic structure to spatial qualities to "windowness" have been challenged. The result is ruthlessly efficient and yet sensual at the same time. It probably seemed quite austere in its day, but notice how views of the landscape are framed and incorporated into the inhabitation experience. Spiral staircase and ramp speak about different kinds of motion of the body in space. Very poetic.

Fast forward to recent times. In the link notice the diagrams especially.
Rem Koolhaas: Seattle Public Library (http://www.arcspace.com/architects/koolhaas/Seattle/)
Good architects, before they start drafting, conceptualize what is called a "parti." A formal idea (in this case "formal" means "of form") which crystallizes an agenda of space and structure into a clear diagram or sketch. This creates a logic which drives the other more secondary design considerations.

Here Rem rethinks stacks, access, people and book circulation, and what "library" might mean for present and future digitally-oriented culture. The architecture is not constrained by conventional assumptions about buildings fitting into a box or the traditional iconography of "library." The really interesting stuff is always meta-critical, sort of always challenging itself as a medium - as well as what the clients think they need, at the same time solving their requirements. His work is often not easy on laymen's eyes. But if one can appreciate the organization of space and structure, this building starts to look very sexy and be total eye candy.

Rafael Moneo: Kursaal Center (http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/people/faculty/moneo/projects.html#kursaal)
I haven't meant to say architecture should by definition aspire to the avant-garde, though I personally find that kind of endeavor most intriguing and inspiring. But here is an example of a project which isn't exactly novel or radical - it is rather simple and restrained- but which I consider a masterpiece- it is one of very few projects which have totally blown me away. I don't think it translates very well diagrammatically or pictorially, and this is one of the things I find most fascinating about it. It requires full presence and experience to appreciate, because it succeeds so well at the more traditional considerations like scale, material, lighting, site. These are considered with an extraordinary level of virtuosity. And because it is only really exquisite in immediacy -- this seems to point to an especial mastery of the medium.

[ikneaddough]

Cool

[MacGuffin]

s0 - any links on the web to learn the very basics of architecture?

[Huston]

s0 - any links on the web to learn the very basics of architecture?

I could scan some pages of the Ontario Building Code, but what good would it be outside of Ontario.

Building codes would be the most basic form of Architecture.

There are at least builing specification formats on the web.

[Huston]

If I had to pick just one canonical piece for the 20th Century it would be:
LeCorbusier: Villa Savoye (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/Corbu.html)
Not all buildings are Architecture. Architecture results from inquiry about form and function, from really investigating and challenging why a building needs to look and work the way we presuppose. In this case, a house. The date is 1929. Why exactly do we need a pitched roof and window shutters to convey "houseness"? What is the point of applying ornamentation simply for sake of tradition? In this house, the very concept of "dwelling" is re-thought, and the design proposition is a "machine for living." Almost all given assumptions about what a house should look and feel like, from basic structure to spatial qualities to "windowness" have been challenged. The result is ruthlessly efficient and yet sensual at the same time. It probably seemed quite austere in its day, but notice how views of the landscape are framed and incorporated into the inhabitation experience. Spiral staircase and ramp speak about different kinds of motion of the body in space. Very poetic.

I am so fucking sick of this building. Covered in Theory (I think it was in two theory courses), History, Studio courses...

[s0978]

s0 - any links on the web to learn the very basics of architecture?not sure what you mean- history, theory, design? If interested in finding out more out of general interest, I guess I'd recommend critical survey books. Tons of stuff on classical and renaissance, for modern the definitive starter is Frampton (http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Architecture-Critical-History-World/dp/0500202575/sr=1-1/qid=1166908937/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3981622-5439059?ie=UTF8&s=books). Only interesting to learn what the great buildings are if the resources say why, right. So I feel rather "meh" about mediocre reference sites like this (http://www.greatbuildings.com/gbc.html).

Partly I started the thread for those who are curious about pursuing the profession, though. I never know quite what to say to those "I think I want to be an architect" posts. I guess I want to say "um, maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't, you'd have to try, but here's what it's sort of about. Cause it's not just slapping up buildings, and if you think that, you'll a) be miserable, and/or b) make shitty buildings, so stay the fuck out."


Building codes would be the most basic form of Architecture.I disagree. I think they have almost nothing to do with Architecture in any essentialist way.


I am so fucking sick of this building. Covered in Theory (I think it was in two theory courses), History, Studio courses...well, maybe it doesn't like you either, wtf! no, listen, it's seminal for so many reasons. go visit it.

[Huston]

I disagree. I think they have almost nothing to do with Architecture in any essentialist way.

Without them, you wouldn't have a building. Simple.


well, maybe it doesn't like you either, wtf! no, listen, it's seminal for so many reasons. go visit it.

You misunderstood my intentions of that comment. There is such a thing as too much of a good (for lack of a better word) thing. However, I do have a comment on this.

"Why exactly do we need a pitched roof and window shutters to convey "houseness"?"

A pitch roof is more ideal in northern climates that deal with snow loads. There is functionality in the vernacular. Le Corbusier, and other Modernists forgot such simple things (window/door sills, cornices, etc) help to promote the life of a building.

[lbloom]

Without them, you wouldn't have a building. Simple.

You wouldn't have a legal building, perhaps, but you can surely have a building. The codes make it harder to screw up the basics and build an unsound structure, but they don't tell you much about architecture itself.

Goes for any kind of design, really.

[Huston]

You wouldn't have a legal building, perhaps, but you can surely have a building. The codes make it harder to screw up the basics and build an unsound structure, but they don't tell you much about architecture itself.

Goes for any kind of design, really.

Again just like code, without function you would have no building. The need for aesthetics come from human psychology. In the end they are equal, but you cannot have one without the other.

[lbloom]

I'm referring to function too.

Code != design.

The code is the end result of the design process, sort of like the finished program for the end-user. The architect is the programmer.

[MacGuffin]

not sure what you mean- history, theory, design? If interested in finding out more out of general interest, I guess I'd recommend critical survey books. Tons of stuff on classical and renaissance, for modern the definitive starter is Frampton (http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Architecture-Critical-History-World/dp/0500202575/sr=1-1/qid=1166908937/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3981622-5439059?ie=UTF8&s=books). Only interesting to learn what the great buildings are if the resources say why, right. So I feel rather "meh" about mediocre reference sites like this (http://www.greatbuildings.com/gbc.html).
Yeah, I meant someone that is curious, not necc. looking to become one.

An appreciation! That's the word I was looking for.

[s0978]

A pitch roof is more ideal in northern climates that deal with snow loads. There is functionality in the vernacular. Le Corbusier, and other Modernists forgot such simple things (window/door sills, cornices, etc) help to promote the life of a building.

ah yes, that's it, they must have forgotten. All those Modernists, they were so silly!

[Salad]

Without them, you wouldn't have a building. Simple.

I'm not really sure where you get this from. Architecture existed long before any code was ever recorded. Code is nothing but a set of governmental restrictions intent on keeping architecture to what is known to work. As an example of architecture existing without codes (or architects for that matter), here you go - http://www.twenty4.co.uk/on-line/issue001/project02/KWC/

Although I suppose that's not really the best example, seeing as how it doesn't exist any more. I just wanted an excuse to post it.

Anyways, good post s0532. I heart Rem.

I'll probably add more to this thread later.

[Huston]

I'm not really sure where you get this from. Architecture existed long before any code was ever recorded. Code is nothing but a set of governmental restrictions intent on keeping architecture to what is known to work. As an example of architecture existing without codes (or architects for that matter), here you go - http://www.twenty4.co.uk/on-line/issue001/project02/KWC/

Although I suppose that's not really the best example, seeing as how it doesn't exist any more. I just wanted an excuse to post it.

A code can also be a vernacular.

[Huston]

ah yes, that's it, they must have forgotten. All those Modernists, they were so silly!

I have nothing against Modernist or Corbusier. Le Cobusier is one of my largest influences. My thesis involved many of his themes.

Here is one of them, and right away you should some of the similarities.

[s0978]

Although I suppose that's not really the best example, seeing as how it doesn't exist any more. I just wanted an excuse to post it.

Anyways, good post s0532. I heart Rem.

I'll probably add more to this thread later.Thanks, and interesting link.

It would be cool if others added projects with brief visual analyses to get a discussion going on what Architecture is about. I think it is mysterious to most. "Architectural Appreciation," as Mac would call it.

For anyone really into design, though, a more focused site and better resource would be http://archinect.com/.


I have nothing against Modernist or Corbusier. Le Cobusier is one of my largest influences. My thesis involved many of his themes.

Here is one of them, and right away you should some of the similarities.
That's nice, Huston. I will only say that a rooftop garden, piloti & strip windows do not a Corbusier project make.

If you'd like to show your work here, why don't you start a thread in the Atelier.

[Huston]

That's nice, Huston. I will only say that a rooftop garden, piloti & strip windows do not a Corbusier project make.

Of course, far from. There are green roofs, but that piece is actually a sloped standing seem copper roof.


If you'd like to show your work here, why don't you start a thread in the Atelier.

I have been planning that for sometime, I just need to find the final CD for my thesis. I don't want to use my incomplete (Even my final is not complete.. damn INTPness) grammatical disaster I have on hand.

[TaylorS]

If I had to pick just one canonical piece for the 20th Century it would be:
LeCorbusier: Villa Savoye (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/Corbu.html)
Not all buildings are Architecture. Architecture results from inquiry about form and function, from really investigating and challenging why a building needs to look and work the way we presuppose. In this case, a house. The date is 1929. Why exactly do we need a pitched roof and window shutters to convey "houseness"? What is the point of applying ornamentation simply for sake of tradition? In this house, the very concept of "dwelling" is re-thought, and the design proposition is a "machine for living." Almost all given assumptions about what a house should look and feel like, from basic structure to spatial qualities to "windowness" have been challenged. The result is ruthlessly efficient and yet sensual at the same time. It probably seemed quite austere in its day, but notice how views of the landscape are framed and incorporated into the inhabitation experience. Spiral staircase and ramp speak about different kinds of motion of the body in space. Very poetic.

what an ugly structure.

I like Art Deco, Neo-Classical, and Neo-Gothic architecture.

[Ivy]

what an ugly structure.

I like Art Deco, Neo-Classical, and Neo-Gothic architecture.

The most amazing thing about that LeCorbusier to me was that it was built in fucking 1929.

[Salad]

what an ugly structure.

I like Art Deco, Neo-Classical, and Neo-Gothic architecture.

Such an in depth an analysis. I'm impressed. Whether you like it or not it's still one of the most important buildings of last century for all the reasons stated by s0532

And now to add a little to the thread, I was in Japan about a month ago and got to experience some pretty exceptional architecture. Unfortunately I didn't have enough time to travel outside of tokyo and kyoto, so I missed some Ando, Ito and Tezuka (and a few others) that I would have loved to see.

One of the buildings I did see however - http://www.arcspace.com/architects/foreign_office/yokohama/yokohama_index.htm

and - http://figure-ground.com/travel/image.php?prada_tokyo

Both exceptional, but for completely different reasons. FOA's Yokohama Port Terminal is one of the best public spaces I've seen, completely artificial yet seamlessly integrating landscape design into the architecture. It may seem a little awkward formally, but the ability to walk on the entire structure and really immerse yourself in the experience of the building more than makes up for it. The ramps and corridors that connect and weave between the levels are quite amazing as well, as is the integration of the structure into the architecture (a completely columnless building).

As for the Prada store by Herzog and de Meuron, it's simply a gorgeous building. Herzog and de Meuron have primarily focused on the development of form, envelope and materials through out their practice (not to say that they haven't created some amazing spaces or done other things as well, because that would be a lie) and this is one of the highlights in that progression. I wish it had been raining when I visited though, it's supposed to be stunning.

[naruto littles helpers.jpeg]

blah...bla...bl...b...*

i like u :wub:


...

and u, 2, s0532. :wub:

and ivy :wub: (y not!)

here's a building i once designed. i think she's purdie. maybe one of you can build it someday? it be a very nice gift to me. :wub:

[Salad]

here's a building i once designed. i think she's purdie. maybe one of you can build it someday? it be a very nice gift to me. :wub:

ha, minus the color difference, how's this? (obviously not designed by me though)

[naruto littles helpers.jpeg]

ha, minus the color difference, how's this? (obviously not designed by me though)

so i guess in a way you made it for me! thanks! :)
it looks lovely- where can i go to see it?

[Oculus Sinister]

s0 - any links on the web to learn the very basics of architecture?

D.K. Ching.

[Oculus Sinister]

Le Corbusier has a lot of interesting art(paintings). i like how he breaks up things a lot and is interested in the messing with the scale and shape of objects.

[Salad]

so i guess in a way you made it for me! thanks! :)
it looks lovely- where can i go to see it?

It's the UFA Cinema Center in Dresden, Germany. Designed by Coop Himmelb(l)au, the posterchild of deconstructivism. glad you like it.
http://www.arcspace.com/architects/coop_himelblau/ufa/index.htm


Le Corbusier has a lot of interesting art(paintings). i like how he breaks up things a lot and is interested in the messing with the scale and shape of objects.

Speaking of Corbu and painting...

[pangolin]

Corbu sucks. The international style has failed. Modernism also sucks, and much of post-modernism does as well.

[naruto littles helpers.jpeg]

It's the UFA Cinema Center in Dresden, Germany. Designed by Coop Himmelb(l)au, the posterchild of deconstructivism. glad you like it.


it's even lovelier seeing it in detail. their other work is just as good, if not better--i'm looking at the Gasometer right now and it's pretty beautiful. thanks/////again\\\\

[Oculus Sinister]

Corbu sucks. The international style has failed. Modernism also sucks, and much of post-modernism does as well.


are you a neo-classical, boroque, romantic, surreal, impressionists?

[s0978]

One of the buildings I did see however - http://www.arcspace.com/architects/foreign_office/yokohama/yokohama_index.htm

and - http://figure-ground.com/travel/image.php?prada_tokyo.Nice picks! I would love to visit the Yokohama project, wonder why you say it's awkward formally. If anything, I would have worried it's one of those projects which make for intriguing concept and stunning diagrams (some of those renderings for the competition- :drool!: ), but built experience potentially not translating well.

Did you get a chance to drop by the Vinoly Tokyo Forum? I thought that one stood up in life way better than in 2d/ graphic representation as well.


what an ugly structure.

I like Art Deco, Neo-Classical, and Neo-Gothic architecture.

It always kind of stuns me that the general public is willing to embrace the new in most fields of design, but not so in architecture. People like contemporary lines in their cars, in industrial design products, gadgets, but are somehow uncomfortable with anything beyond pediments and columns, the antique and traditional, in buildings.

I guess the same might be said about Art. It often seems like popular appeal gravitates toward the pre-modern stuff.

I presume it's lack of exposure/ education. *shrug*

[Ivy]

It always kind of stuns me that the general public is willing to embrace the new in most fields of design, but not so in architecture. People like contemporary lines in their cars, in industrial design products, gadgets, but are somehow uncomfortable with anything beyond pediments and columns, the antique and traditional, in buildings.

I guess the same might be said about Art. It often seems like popular appeal gravitates toward the pre-modern stuff.

I presume it's lack of exposure/ education. *shrug*

I think a lot of it is just self-feeding skittishness over owning something that you perceive will only be marketable to a small percentage of the population when you're done with it. I know when we were house-shopping (not that we were able to consider anything truly innovative, on our first-home budget, but there are some neat contemporary small houses around here anyway... but I digress) we thought a lot about whether we would be able to sell it when we were ready to move on.

It's funny, too, because if we were willing to buy an untraditional home except for market preferences then surely more people are in the same boat, and maybe "market preferences" are just self-referential. I don't even know if I have communicated anything here, but I had fun typing it.

[Wolf]

It always kind of stuns me that the general public is willing to embrace the new in most fields of design, but not so in architecture. People like contemporary lines in their cars, in industrial design products, gadgets, but are somehow uncomfortable with anything beyond pediments and columns, the antique and traditional, in buildings.

I guess the same might be said about Art. It often seems like popular appeal gravitates toward the pre-modern stuff.

I presume it's lack of exposure/ education. *shrug*
Human nature. Also, anyone that has seen much "contemporary" modern architecture knows they would never want to buy and/or live in such a thing. There are exceptions, but these are giant public structures. Most business build pretty mundane structures.

My sister once toyed with the idea, as it was a passing interest, until she realized nobody would ever go for anything worth designing. Instead, most just design the cookie-cutter McMansions and strip malls of the world. Things you could practically do completely automatically with a computer program...

[s0978]

It's funny, too, because if we were willing to buy an untraditional home except for market preferences then surely more people are in the same boat, and maybe "market preferences" are just self-referential. I don't even know if I have communicated anything here, but I had fun typing it.

Nope, it's an interesting and relevant point. I just wonder about the appeal factor in and of itself.

But, for example, homebuyers who gravitate toward brick, say, because of general association with structural stability. Do they know we're generally talking about stud construction with brick veneer nowadays? Would they care? (Just rhetorical.)

[Ivy]

Human nature. Also, anyone that has seen much "contemporary" modern architecture knows they would never want to buy and/or live in such a thing. There are exceptions, but these are giant public structures. Most business build pretty mundane structures.

My former employers (my best English professor and her Law professor husband with the daughter I nannied literally from birth, off and on, finally ending a couple of years ago, but she's still friends with my daughter so we see each other periodically, but I digress [which is quickly becoming my catchphrase]) decided to buy an awesome house when they returned to North Carolina, as a consolation prize for having to leave New York. They ended up buying a giant contemporary modern house which is simply stunning. Nice, clean lines and plenty of empty space. I think part of the idea is that an uncluttered living space promotes an uncluttered thinking space. Being a cluttered liver/thinker I can see the attraction.

They also have really nice art to put on the giant white walls, which I think may be part of the idea with houses like these.

[Ivy]

Nope, it's an interesting and relevant point. I just wonder about the appeal factor in and of itself.

But, for example, homebuyers who gravitate toward brick, say, because of general association with structural stability. Do they know we're generally talking about stud construction with brick veneer nowadays? Would they care? (Just rhetorical.)

I think a lot of the attraction of brick is not having to paint it or replace siding every so often. Maintenance is easier, even if it is just a shell.

[Geoff]

I think a lot of the attraction of brick is not having to paint it or replace siding every so often. Maintenance is easier, even if it is just a shell.

It's longer lasting, too. In england, where brick is universal, we dont think a brick house is old at 100 years, 200 years etc. The only real problem with houses hundreds of years old is keeping the roof up straight. Try that with a modern North American home....

-Geoff

[Wolf]

It's longer lasting, too. In england, where brick is universal, we dont think a brick house is old at 100 years, 200 years etc. The only real problem with houses hundreds of years old is keeping the roof up straight. Try that with a modern North American home....

-Geoff
We will be razing tens of thousands of these McMansions en masse in about 30-50 years... Most will be ghost towns by that point, I suspect.

They're talking veneer, which isn't brick. It's just bonded on the house, it's not structural at all. All our houses are cheap construction consisting of 2x4s (at best) that are air-nailed together and covered in rough pine-based particle board on the outside with some appearance covering, then with gypsum board (wallboard) on the insides, some spun fiberglass in the outside walls and ceilings, and some form of cheap composite roofing to top it off. They're designed cheaply by dime-a-dozen architects employed temporarily by a construction company to design a slightly more outwardly ostentatious structure than the competition so they can sell them for more to the mindless aspirational baby boomers looking to show-up the Joneses.

My best friend owns a house that is over 100 years old, and the hip roof is bowing in spite of the extremely durable construction (it is one of those funky pyramid roofs). Most of the modern houses I have seen around here are starting to fall apart by 30 years, like the one the parents bought where the porches are literally falling off and taking walls and roof with them. At least it's made with 2x4s, unlike the McMansions, which have paper-thin 2x2 studs in the walls of most rooms...

I'm amazed at how temporary our housing is built now. The houses my grandparents bought in the 40s and 50s are so robustly built that after 70+ years of termites eating them and California earthquakes shaking them, they're still quite structurally sound. These were the cheap post-war cookie-cutter houses, too.

[Ferrus]

I'm mainly interested in the vocabulary and theory, so that when some middle class knob jockey starts sprouting on about 'Ah yes, excellent portico with a fabulous architrave' I know what the hell they are talking about.

[Salad]

Nice picks! I would love to visit the Yokohama project, wonder why you say it's awkward formally. If anything, I would have worried it's one of those projects which make for intriguing concept and stunning diagrams (some of those renderings for the competition- :drool!: ), but built experience potentially not translating well.
I think I say it was awkward formally just because of the front elevation that you're confronted with as you approach it. I understand the reasoning for it, but I still have a difficult time accepting the winged symmetry. Just a personal opinion. The spaces were great though, I'd say they live up to the diagrams. The link earlier didn't have any good interior shots, so here's one from my own collection (and feel free to go through the rest of the japan pics there too if you're interested).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anonymousgraffiti/383265607/in/set-72157594523795228/



Did you get a chance to drop by the Vinoly Tokyo Forum? I thought that one stood up in life way better than in 2d/ graphic representation as well.
Yeah, great spaces, incredibly difficult to capture in 2d. Definitely a favorite though. I have a couple pics of it on flickr as well.

As for conservatism in architecture goes, yeah, I don't really understand it either. I tried explaining tectonics versus veneer and foam details to my aunt once, it didn't go very well. I think my parents get it though, finally.

[Ivy]

I'm curious to see what people who actually know something about architecture think of this:

http://www.greenbridgedevelopments.com/

This is a controversial new project near me. It's high-end "green" architecture, controversial because it's seen as gentrification since no one who lives there now could afford to buy in the new building. I'm intrigued but I feel unqualified to really objectively assess it.

[Ferrus]

A pitch roof is more ideal in northern climates that deal with snow loads. There is functionality in the vernacular. Le Corbusier, and other Modernists forgot such simple things (window/door sills, cornices, etc) help to promote the life of a building.
Are you sure you don't just want to do engineering?

[Ivy]

The Fab Tree Hab (http://www.archinode.com/bienal.html)

This is also interesting to me but seems a bit pie-in-the-sky. Perhaps it's NF architecture.

[pangolin]

well, maybe it doesn't like you either, wtf! no, listen, it's seminal for so many reasons. go visit it.

While it may be seminal and therefor of historical (hysterical?) import, it is not Architecture, possessing neither firmness, commodity nor delight.

Ultimately the fact that it is so seminal just makes it an historical travesty.

[floid]

The Fab Tree Hab (http://www.archinode.com/bienal.html)

This is also interesting to me but seems a bit pie-in-the-sky. Perhaps it's NF architecture.

More like "fruit-in-the-firmament".
Like pie-in-the-sky but not yet even half baked.

[pangolin]

ah yes, that's it, they must have forgotten. All those Modernists, they were so silly!

Indeed they were.

[pangolin]

The Fab Tree Hab (http://www.archinode.com/bienal.html)

This is also interesting to me but seems a bit pie-in-the-sky. Perhaps it's NF architecture.

That is awesome. That is probably as close as anything I've seen to what I think architecture should be like.

[turquoise]

Not all buildings are Architecture. Architecture results from inquiry about form and function, from really investigating and challenging why a building needs to look and work the way we presuppose.

Architecture will also determine how a life is led in e.g. a house, reflects through its function the role models of the time, personal biographies of possible inhabitants.

If you look at 'La Cité Radieuse', it just looks like a block from outside, but on a closer look you discover what makes this so different.

I am living not far from Villa Savoie, I really have to go an see it.
I also liked the Villa Jeanneret where I got for the first time a feeling how it is to be inside a Corbusier structure.

[Ferrus]

I can say though... sigh, that I do have a partiality towards traditional architecture. I can understand the philosophical arguments and the theory, and engage my brain, but my eyes wish to be given an aesthetic feast. This doesn't mean returning to 18th century classicism - rather however it does mean that I dislike the excessive focus on form over embellishment.

[turquoise]

I can say though... sigh, that I do have a partiality towards traditional architecture. I can understand the philosophical arguments and the theory, and engage my brain, but my eyes wish to be given an aesthetic feast. This doesn't mean returning to 18th century classicism - rather however it does mean that I dislike the excessive focus on form over embellishment.

You may then be partial towards traditional architecture ;)
I agree that likes or dislikes are an important motivator for all the following brain activities...

My brain pleasure zones just happen to light up *sometimes* with modern architecture as well (...nusquam habitat)