Comments on: Continuing the Conversation: Towards an Architecture of Place http://www.pps.org/blog/continuing-conversation-towards-an-architecture-of-place/ Placemaking for Communities Tue, 14 May 2013 09:42:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5 By: Bruce F. Donnelly http://www.pps.org/blog/continuing-conversation-towards-an-architecture-of-place/comment-page-1/#comment-97080 Bruce F. Donnelly Thu, 17 May 2012 15:05:00 +0000 http://www.pps.org/?p=74400#comment-97080 “I don’t think the argument [for an Architecture of Place] will be broadly persuasive until we find a way to take it out of the purely subjective. Because others can and will respond “but that building doesn’t make me feel that way,” and then there is an impasse.”

Traditions usually stick around for a reason. For instance, don’t just plunk a glass roof on any old thing, as in the Seattle library. You can glaze a courtyard, but it’s sensible to have solid walls with windows punched in them–windows with curtains, drapes, or blinds. While it’s important not to mis-apply an iconic solution regardless of context, it’s also important not to try to reinvent things all the time. 

So the key may be a division of labor, as the article suggested: professionals draw on expertise and tradition to build and maintain what residents and stakeholders need and want. I expect there’s a relationship, by the way, between conservative, tried-and-true design solutions and developing consensus. 

There’s often more creativity, by the way, needed to adapt and combine appropriate, conservative design solutions than there is in deploying gimcrackery while ignoring obvious pitfalls.

]]> By: Bruce F. Donnelly http://www.pps.org/blog/continuing-conversation-towards-an-architecture-of-place/comment-page-1/#comment-97081 Bruce F. Donnelly Thu, 17 May 2012 15:05:00 +0000 http://www.pps.org/?p=74400#comment-97081 “I don’t think the argument [for an Architecture of Place] will be broadly persuasive until we find a way to take it out of the purely subjective. Because others can and will respond “but that building doesn’t make me feel that way,” and then there is an impasse.”

Traditions usually stick around for a reason. For instance, don’t just plunk a glass roof on any old thing, as in the Seattle library. You can glaze a courtyard, but it’s sensible to have solid walls with windows punched in them–windows with curtains, drapes, or blinds. While it’s important not to mis-apply an iconic solution regardless of context, it’s also important not to try to reinvent things all the time. 

So the key may be a division of labor, as the article suggested: professionals draw on expertise and tradition to build and maintain what residents and stakeholders need and want. I expect there’s a relationship, by the way, between conservative, tried-and-true design solutions and developing consensus. 

There’s often more creativity, by the way, needed to adapt and combine appropriate, conservative design solutions than there is in deploying gimcrackery while ignoring obvious pitfalls.

]]> By: Bruce F. Donnelly http://www.pps.org/blog/continuing-conversation-towards-an-architecture-of-place/comment-page-1/#comment-97082 Bruce F. Donnelly Thu, 17 May 2012 15:05:00 +0000 http://www.pps.org/?p=74400#comment-97082 “I don’t think the argument [for an Architecture of Place] will be broadly persuasive until we find a way to take it out of the purely subjective. Because others can and will respond “but that building doesn’t make me feel that way,” and then there is an impasse.”

Traditions usually stick around for a reason. For instance, don’t just plunk a glass roof on any old thing, as in the Seattle library. You can glaze a courtyard, but it’s sensible to have solid walls with windows punched in them–windows with curtains, drapes, or blinds. While it’s important not to mis-apply an iconic solution regardless of context, it’s also important not to try to reinvent things all the time. 

So the key may be a division of labor, as the article suggested: professionals draw on expertise and tradition to build and maintain what residents and stakeholders need and want. I expect there’s a relationship, by the way, between conservative, tried-and-true design solutions and developing consensus. 

There’s often more creativity, by the way, needed to adapt and combine appropriate, conservative design solutions than there is in deploying gimcrackery while ignoring obvious pitfalls.

]]> By: Bruce F. Donnelly http://www.pps.org/blog/continuing-conversation-towards-an-architecture-of-place/comment-page-1/#comment-97083 Bruce F. Donnelly Thu, 17 May 2012 15:05:00 +0000 http://www.pps.org/?p=74400#comment-97083 “I don’t think the argument [for an Architecture of Place] will be broadly persuasive until we find a way to take it out of the purely subjective. Because others can and will respond “but that building doesn’t make me feel that way,” and then there is an impasse.”

Traditions usually stick around for a reason. For instance, don’t just plunk a glass roof on any old thing, as in the Seattle library. You can glaze a courtyard, but it’s sensible to have solid walls with windows punched in them–windows with curtains, drapes, or blinds. While it’s important not to mis-apply an iconic solution regardless of context, it’s also important not to try to reinvent things all the time. 

So the key may be a division of labor, as the article suggested: professionals draw on expertise and tradition to build and maintain what residents and stakeholders need and want. I expect there’s a relationship, by the way, between conservative, tried-and-true design solutions and developing consensus. 

There’s often more creativity, by the way, needed to adapt and combine appropriate, conservative design solutions than there is in deploying gimcrackery while ignoring obvious pitfalls.

]]>