|Re: design as criteria? Design Comes FIRST.||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Lion Kuntz (lionkuntzyahoo.com)|
|Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 18:58:02 -0700 (PDT)|
> From: Lion Kuntz > >--- Robert Moskowitz wrote: > >> Opt In > >> Verification of Financial Capability > >> Acquisition of Property > >> Design > >> Hiring of contractor > >> Construction > >> Move in > > >...R. Buckminster Fuller wrote a dozen books and travelled the globe > >hundreds of times lecturing that design comes first above all other > >priorities. Nobody got it then, and you still are not getting that. > Even after your careful post, I'm not sure I get that. > Is it your contention that design comes before property? I'm no > expert but > I was under the impression that the topography and substrate of the > property > had to be considered in design. Certainly, but what are the design principles that suggest one site is more worth buying than another? Is there NO site you would refuse to try to accomodate yourself to? Why not? The substrate is not much of an issue where many building already are located nearby, such as in cities, or suburbs. Topography certainly does have a lot to say about building design, but are there some design principles which would cause you to refuse a particular site even if they gave it to you for free? There's an area in Olympia off downtown which has everything one might want in location convenience and other topography, but it's dominated by a reeking sewage treatment plant whose odor hangs heavy over that whole part of town. Certain metaphysical elements take precedence over physical elements. > Now, certainly a group will explicate some design values-like > sustainable, > eco-friendly, vehicular access, preferred common facilities-but lots > of > decisions will depend on how deep you must pour the footers, won't > they? > Also, how would this advice change if a group was focused on urban > retrofit? > Design must follow acquisition when you (for example) decide you're > buying > up an urban city block, or an old warehouse, no? Over a number of years I asked general contractors about the divisions in costs in setting new home prices. Only one third of the price is actual physical materials, and that would include foundations and footings. Two thirds of the first sale market price goes to other factors. This is a generalized averaging, and I'm sure every building project is an exception to the rule, but summing them all and dividing by the total number of exceptions produces the rule that nobody actually follows exactly. Deeper footings at one place may have lower utilities hookup costs, or less paved roadway required in connecting it to the nearest public road, or intangibles like proximity to preferred schools or shopping or work. Even serendipty, say, where a city liquidates a closed public school property, but local ordinances require it be given preferential pricing to affordable housing developments, could have powerful influence on where a community is located and many physical features will be influenced by that. Still, design principles ought to preceed construction planning. The number of final finished buildings is virtually infinite, beyond any human being surveying even a tiny fraction of them in a lifetime, so it can hardly be said that final form is predetermined by local land features. The most beneficial thing you can do with an old warehouse or "historic mill" is tear it down. In fact, that's a kindness that you could mercifully apply to a majority of warehouses completed five minutes ago. There is a very serious problem that 8.7% of total global energy is consumed in the USA by the building structures. Considering that 5% of the worlds people lives in the USA, that is 3.7% more than our fair equitable share used before even beginning counting industry and transportation sectors of the energy economy. That's a heap of badly designed buildings hemorrhaging energy inefficiency. http://architecture2030.org./home.html http://architecture2030.org./open_letter/index.html The â??2030 Â°Challengeâ?? The quicker we move to the 21st Century building designs, the faster we stop the bleeding. The cost of delay is far higher than the costs of rapid demolition and replacement. 20,000 future generations of human beings, some inheriting your genes, have very few spokespersons present in this slaughterhouse of natural wealth which we call the present. Their interests are not being represented in the councils of the living. The dead are gone and have no stake in the present -- their building mistakes are not heirlooms, they are deathtraps. They negilgently refused to take their architectural mistakes down to the grave with them. Their litter is not objects of my worship. Here's some pictures of aspects of a building completed in 1908, as luxury condos of the time, still continuously inhabited for nearly 100 years. http://ecosyn.us/1/Casa_Mila/Casa_Mila.html http://ecosyn.us/1/Casa_Mila/Casa_Mila_01.jpg Those whimsical sculptures on the roof are chimney vents. This photo-study is not particularly applicable to present discussion, as it's purpose was to illustrate how natural daylighting is brought down into interiors of buildings using lightwells. Still that one picture illustrates that there is some design merits to a building which has satisfied occupants for a century -- few buildings can make such a claim, and fewer still qualify for making that claim for the next 100 years. Delaying the date of the wrecking ball, or date with recycling dismantling, of lots of less-than-satisfying structures is false economy. Either you remove them or Global Warming wrecks them -- there's no third option available to you. http://ecosyn.us/1/1/stormy.html http://ecosyn.us/1/Tornadoes.html In 2004 Hurricane Francis, a category 1 hurricane of middling strength spawned the most tornadoes ever recorded in the USA, 117 of them, followed a few weeks later by Hurricane Ivan's 104 tornadoes. Hurricane Ivan was cat-3, same strength as Katrina when it hit landfall. These energy inefficent buildings are going away, one way or another. Your problem is not how to save money by rehabbing a derelict warehouse, but how to build roofs that can withstand grapefruit-sized hailstones coming more regularly now. Grapefruit-sized hail punches straight through ordinary rooftops. Baseball-sized hail beats up cars into total wrecks, you too if out in unprotected areas. http://snipurl.com/qp7g Google Results about 530 for Grapefruit-Sized Hail 2006. http://snipurl.com/qp7l Google Results about 15,300 for Softball-Sized Hail 2006. http://snipurl.com/qp7n Google Results about 56,400 for Baseball-Sized Hail 2006. http://snipurl.com/qp7o Google Results about 63,300 for Golf Ball-Sized Hail 2006. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sincerely, Lion Kuntz Santa Rosa, California, USA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.ecosyn.us/Welcome/ http://www.ecosyn.us/Interesting/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: design as criteria? truddick, May 19 2006
- Re: design as criteria? Design Comes FIRST. Lion Kuntz, May 19 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.