Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jackson

  • Rank
    Unincorporated Area
  • Birthday 09/21/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York City
  1. I appreciate architecture based on talent and effort, and how well a building's elements of mass satisfies the environment that its in. And that's it. Those are precisely the grounds that I speak on. Although I've used strong words to criticize these houses, I don't really feel strong one way or the other about them. In fact, I most certainally beleive that they will have a positive effect on the neighborhood. However, the point that I'm making is that these homes, from an architectual standpoint, are far inferior in comparison to the other homes in the neighborhood. Why is it that nobody else seems to care that what we build today is inferior to what we used to build? Shouldn't we, as a society, embrace advancement in what we create, as opposed to creating something that is worse than what we built houndreds of years ago? What Kind of message does this send, that we accept this? I'm sorry, but I simply don't settle for this. I guess you guys don't really care that architecture, which is the physical representation of the vitality of our civilization, is worse than what it used to be. Why doesn't anybody else see this as the very opposite of evolution? I don't know. But hey, at least we've generated some discussion over the issue.
  2. alright, alright, they're not that bad. But the point I'm driving at is that these houses are worse than what exists in the rest of the nieghborhood--doesn't that just seem wrong? I mean, when we build things, don't we want them to be better, rather than stand out as being not as good? Understood, there probably wasn't a giant budget to build these. However, the architect should do better than this, no matter what the budget. I looked at the links of the neighborhood, and it shows that these houses show a trend of worse and worse architecture, and its too bad that the newest addition is simply a continuation of that trend. I am in no way against modern architecture, but I think that if you're going to do something traditional, you don't have to try and be innovative in the sense that you stive for a worse version of a simple house that we had previously built perfectly fine and abandoning some basic principals of design without having a specific concept as to what you want your structure to look like. And if this is the final product of this architect's effort towards this design in such a sensitive urban environment as this, then I'd say we've reached a new low in architectual design. But anyways its good to see some redevelopment taking place, and some clean and decent housing being created for low-income families. But its definately going to do at least a little to contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood, and I hope this effort continues. But my opinion stands: the houses are poorly designed.
  3. hmmm.... I don't know what a loft in manhattan has to do with this, but I was really wondering why a picture of houses only distinctive in their poor architectural design was posted in the first place. I'm not against the fact that it was posted, I'm really just wondering why, because maybe there's a good answer. well I don't know too much about Detroit, as I have never been there, assuming that North Corktown is a historical neighborhood, its easy for me to distinguish these houses as new based on their unintelligent design. Bad design is a good indicator that something was built in the last 50 years. So unless N. Corktown is made up of poorly designed houses (which I highly doubt, as it is in Detroit, a city of architectural excellence), I can't imagine how these houses would blend in with a historical context. What's even more ridiculous, is that these houses obviously aren't designed in a contemporary style, which leads me to believe they were commissioned specifically to fit in a historical context. This demonstrates how bad the architect is that designed these houses, because designing wood frame, multi-family houses is not a particularly difficult commission, and this particular designer made a simple assignment terrible. I mean, if this was done by a high school student taking an architecture class, it would be alright (but even my high school, which was very small, btw, produced houses far superior to these). But for someone who gets paid to design a house, this is an example of absolutely no design ability. The fa
  4. whats so special about those houses? Those are terribly designed, by any standard
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.