[QUOTE=Bugga12;49143159]If we're on the topic of brutalism, then the "Casa da Musica" in Porto, Portugal will be right up your alley:
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Casamusicaexterior.jpg/1920px-Casamusicaexterior.jpg[/t]
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Casa-da-musica%28interior%29.1024.jpg[/t]
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Casa_da_M%C3%BAsica_interior_01.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
I especially like the first pic. The one reason I dont like brutalist architecture is because the color of concrete is so 'dirty' it makes the building look like a giant shit stain. But in that picture you posted, the building looks clean, like it was made of marble. If all brutalist architecture looked like this I'd have a different opinion of it.
Concrete needs to be cleaned and maintained or else it just looks like, and falls to shit.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;49145070]Concrete needs to be cleaned and maintained or else it just looks like, and falls to shit.[/QUOTE]
You see the same with Art Deco buildings. Big, textured surfaces seem to pick up dirt like nothing else.
[QUOTE=OvB;49142286]Why does this thread love brutalist so much. IMO it's either okay or terrible. I like the architecture with organic, flowing lines, clean textures, and parts of nature mixed in, like parks on the roof. I guess it's called [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_architecture]organic architecture.[/url]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/zFYAQkh.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
ohh, i'm a sucker for that kinda stuff.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/7dKsODa.png[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/qkDwrmb.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Uczlahq.jpg[/t]
Maybe not the same scale, but still.
The University of Cincinnati has some pretty interesting architecture.
The Engineering Research Center is one of my favorites. It was designed to look like a 4-cylinder engine.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/XQsWo12.jpg[/img]
The DAAP building
[img]http://i.imgur.com/rwn2ueS.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/6QE7fSi.jpg[/img]
Crosley Tower. A bit hideous, but pretty interesting. It's 2nd largest singularly-poured cement structure worldwide, behind the Hoover Dam.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/RGlqq0A.jpg[/img]
Recreation Center
[img]http://i.imgur.com/q60r2YC.jpg[/img]
One of these days, I'm gonna take some better pictures. The DAAP building is absolutely beautiful inside.
[QUOTE=Griffster26;49143135][video=youtube;9g9jwN5_Fgw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g9jwN5_Fgw[/video][/QUOTE]
Is the 'Chinese' trooper just a short white man in yellowface? It looks like it to me but it's hard to tell with the resolution and black-and-white.
[editline]19th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49145166]You see the same with Art Deco buildings. Big, textured surfaces seem to pick up dirt like nothing else.[/QUOTE]
I find dirty Art Deco buildings tend to look somewhat decadent and 'used future'-ish, whilst dirty brutalism just looks like... filth.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;49145979]Is the 'Chinese' trooper just a short white man in yellowface? It looks like it to me but it's hard to tell with the resolution and black-and-white.
[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure he doesn't have anything on his face, just a darker natural complexion than the taller guy.
[QUOTE=noh_mercy;49141602][t]http://aceipedia.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/6/0/11600132/5121201_orig.jpg?311[/t]
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/St-Anne_church_Krakow_003.JPG[/t]
[t]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AIOaS1RKWmk/UGmf1T3oGMI/AAAAAAAAC28/c--klchAHls/s1600/catania3455.JPG[/t]
[t]https://carolyntravels.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/dsc_0961.jpg[/t]
[t]https://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/siracusa/cathedral/4002.jpg[/t]
[t]http://images.neverendingvoyage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/lecce-san-matteo-church.jpg[/t]
I dont like brutalism. I like baroque[/QUOTE]
Baroque and gothic architecture are my personal favorites. The detail in them and the general design are pretty neat.
Lets go back a few centuries
[img_thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/The_Forbidden_City_-_Beijing_28_%284935462316%29.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AaczNJeiyjo/maxresdefault.jpg[/img_thumb]
Chinese architecture is the center of architecture world as mandated.
We have been last 100 years in modernism and various subforms of it.
I'm waiting for the major change in style.
[QUOTE=oskutin;49149100]We have been last 100 years in modernism and various subforms of it.
I'm waiting for the major change in style.[/QUOTE]
Then either invent a new, better building material with different properties, or go somewhere where the engineering problems a building has to solve are vastly different from those we have now.
Architecture is engineering as much as it is art, if not more so. The core styles evolve to fit the needs and requirements. Modernism in all its forms comes from cheap steel, concrete and glass - the form follows function, either requirements of the building or of the construction process. Earlier styles came from cheap stone, or brick, or wood, depending on the era and location.
I do wonder what space architecture will one day look like. The materials will likely be the same, but the problems space architecture must solve are pretty different.
People might have seen these already but I haven't and its the best thing ive ever seen so
[IMG]http://u.cubeupload.com/callumshell1/article0198DCDA20000.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://u.cubeupload.com/callumshell1/article0198DCCB90000.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://u.cubeupload.com/callumshell1/article0198DCD110000.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://u.cubeupload.com/callumshell1/article0198DCD720000.jpg[/IMG]
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511158/[/url]
[QUOTE=gman003-main;49149139]Then either invent a new, better building material with different properties, or go somewhere where the engineering problems a building has to solve are vastly different from those we have now.
Architecture is engineering as much as it is art, if not more so. The core styles evolve to fit the needs and requirements. Modernism in all its forms comes from cheap steel, concrete and glass - the form follows function, either requirements of the building or of the construction process. Earlier styles came from cheap stone, or brick, or wood, depending on the era and location.
I do wonder what space architecture will one day look like. The materials will likely be the same, but the problems space architecture must solve are pretty different.[/QUOTE]
Available materials and available/known technigues are important factor of architechture, but still, it won't define everything. If it were, ancient Asian, European and etc. architechure would have looked more or less the same. Currently there's a lot of equally or nearly equally cheap materials to be used available.
The most defining factor what current architechture and cities looks like is convention and tradition, people just more or less copy what they have seen. They'll just do slight adjustments and changes to it. There are only few architechts who are truly experimenting with something new.
The buildings which shows the most of belonging into some architechtural style are often build with big money by rich or powerfull organizations with a lot of effort where they didn't use the cheapest methods and materials. You know, cathedrals, corporation HQs, public buildings and rich person's homes. More generally just the wealth and effort of the society. And only few of those have been designed by more innovative architechts. In the budget and standard buildings materials and methods play greater role, but even still, they have a lot of room to do things differently, thus driven by convention. Often these are just some cheaper version of driving style.
Other factors are culture, how people live, what people want, what is offered, where people live, what people finds and thinks is cool and every one of these are more or less driven by convention and tradition. Non convention/culture based factors are weather and geology and etc; but they still have room for the culture part with solutions people have came with to overcome those challenged.
Currently people and artists more or less like simplicity, retangular shapes and white color defining the current art period and use the materials and methods for it. When people starts to find lack of ornaments and other of those features boring and someone invents new alternative which others start to copy, things start to happen.
I'm guessing it's because of our relationship with Israel but still I'm surprised I've never heard of this or read about it any history textbooks. Some crazy shit happened during the Cold War
[quote]In 1967, at the height of the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War, the Israeli Air Force launched an unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty, a US Navy spy ship that was monitoring the conflict from the safety of international waters in the Mediterranean.
Israeli jet fighters hit the vessel with rockets, cannon fire and [B]napalm[/B], before three Israeli torpedo boats moved in to launch a second more devastating attack. Though she did not sink, the Liberty was badly damaged. Thirty-four US servicemen and civilian analysts were killed, another 171 were wounded.
Later Israel apologised for what it claimed to be a tragic case of mistaken identity. It said that it had believed the ship to be hostile Egyptian naval vessel. US President Lyndon Johnson was privately furious but publicly the White House chose not to challenge the word of its closest Middle East ally and accepted that the attack had been a catastrophic accident.[/quote]
[IMG]https://daliamaelachlan.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/ussliberty.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/liberty.torpedo_hole.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/H97478t.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/libbodybags.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://honorlibertyvets.org/images/survivors.jpg[/IMG]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident[/url]
A lot of people like to say that Israel did it deliberately but I can't think of a single thing they could gain from doing it.
[QUOTE=download;49149979]A lot of people like to say that Israel did it deliberately but I can't think of a single thing they could gain from doing it.[/QUOTE]
It was a spy ship. They could have feared it was spying on them as much as Egypt, allies or not.
Jesus christ that ship can take a damn beating
[img]http://i.imgur.com/vbtamR4.jpg[/img]
[quote]Mrs. Edna Winston, wife of Harry Winston, presenting the Hope Diamond to Secretary Leonard Carmichael and Curator George Switzer on November 10, 1958.
Smithsonian mineralogist George Switzer is credited with persuading jeweler Harry Winston to donate the Hope Diamond for a proposed national gem collection to be housed at the National Museum of Natural History. On November 10, 1958, Winston acquiesced, sending it through U.S. Mail in a box wrapped in brown paper as simple registered mail insured for $1 million at a cost of $145.29, of which $2.44 was for postage and the balance insurance. As of 2011 the Hope Diamond is worth 20-250 million USD[/quote]
Isnt there a picture or .gif where someone was able to tell what type of plane had hit the side of a ship by the shape of the dent it made?
the first one reminds me of a pterosaur's wings for some reason
[QUOTE=King of Limbs;49087053]Seriously one of the most disturbing yet incredible machines ive seen to cut down trees.
[hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CnAPD39cUQ[/hd][/QUOTE]
Ponsse won swedish steel prize this year, probably because they made the scorpion
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0oIzQYeRvk[/media]
Auxiliary pics v. TIMBER!
[vid]https://i.imgur.com/7st7pST.webm[/vid]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
