No building alike even build with the same design but it would be boring/dull no matter how creative it is.
The rising cost of living prompt the increasing adoption of modular coordination and industrialized building at large scale that is repetitive in design. This might also coincide with Le Corbusier design that keep everything minimum yet functionable that is brutal to some Architects. Brutality in the sense that expose bare concrete look like an undressed man, strong;funtional; but may be a public nuisance to some (not if it is a girl). Yet, they are not exactly the same.
Zaha Hadid design style also expose bare concrete but they are more organic and unique in each and everyone of them. The curvature mimicking feminity that is eyes catching but like how most girl go shopping, they are not very practical in terms of buildability and cost of construction (aesthetic compensate economy). The function requirements of these high-end building may justify the cost of construction. They are not build to cater for public housing, they are to compete for designer's award.
It is not architecture if building are bare& monotonous because architecture respond to the environment: site orientation, precipitation rate, sun path, wind velocity&direction, surrounding object, climate, local culture, availability of materials, technology, functional requirements, local statutory requirement (such as fire department, GFA,), expected lifespan, clients requirements, industrial standard (Quality standard, Green Building standard: LEEDS, GBI, GreenMark, GreenStar, BREAM). There's also budget, time and quality constraints.
The magnitude of repetitive design in building is always in direct inverse relationship with cost (economics). There is no silver bullet, it is very much depending on suitability.
Uniqueness is costly, unless you can afford then it is at your discretion/preference.
No comments:
Post a Comment