DMac Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 The external effect of the final revisions, as comparison of the pre-preliminary, Scheme D, and preliminary, Scheme E, perspectives discloses, was a slight but noticeable diminution of computational authority and presence brought about through changes in fenestration, massing and materials. In particular, the central register was deprived of much of its previous visual autonomy by the insertion of windows in the two outer bays of the main level, creating a band of windows across all 5 bays. This repetition of the banded expanse of the arched windows of the third level not only created the register to drift into the horizontally emphatic voids of the loggias to either side but also weakened the centrifugally focused pattern of fenestration previously established about the middle bays of the register's ground and main levels. The arcades of the earlier scheme were squared off, in filled and punctured by doorways leading directly to the east and west wings and by small, unassuming windows. Windows throughout became slightly shrunken and more reticent. The windows of the alcove pavilion adjoining the east loggia, previously the size of the main level windows of the central register, were reduced to small, high apertures, perceptibly diminishing the visual impact of the pavilion as an anchor point for the east wing. The authority of the pavilion was further undermined by the expansion of the principal, three story mass of the east wing from five bays to six while the frontal, two-story loggia and alcove layer remained five bays in length - modulating and thus weakening the entire side profile of the east wing. The corresponding extension of the west wing by a single bay proved less disruptive owning to the circumstances of its connection to the ell. The eaves and rake of the pyramidal clerestory tower roof and the eaves of the ell were made slightly more prominent to good effect. The most extensive difference between the two schemes {D & E} lay in the substitution of brick for stone as the principal finish for the exterior walls of all but the central register. The application of black veneer softened the crisp, clear relief of the stone version. Several bands of molding and all quoining were deleted from the ell wing. The carved stone balustrade, pediments and other trim of the central register were rendered w/greater delicacy, acquiring more of a filigreed quality while the slender engaged columns of the register's main level facade were flattened into shallow pilaster. Etc., etc., etc.RespectfullyDanny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texas911 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 At school, we had a term for this. Word Salad. It makes up for a poor design, bsing your way through a presentation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMac Posted December 6, 2006 Author Share Posted December 6, 2006 At school, we had a term for this. Word Salad. It makes up for a poor design, bsing your way through a presentation.Right!And to thank that all that teaching @ a young age apparently didn't stick or else when you advance your profession thru higher education they teach just the opposite. Pick up any government doc today and you get a damned headache trying to read thru all the garbage.RespectfullyDanny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 You can tell niche wrote that. You go cross-eyed after you realize you're half-way through and he still hasn't made his point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 (edited) Danny is just saying that the house is butt-ugly in his opinion after alterations to the original design came to fruition in the final product. He doesn't like all the extra windows on the front and the other, now smaller windows, throughout the rest of the house throwing off the symetry of the whole thing. They will now scrap the whole project and start all over. Edited December 6, 2006 by TJones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houston-development Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Danny is just saying that the house is butt-ugly in his opinion after alterations to the original design came to fruition in the final product. He doesn't like all the extra windows on the front and the other, now smaller windows, throughout the rest of the house throwing off the symetry of the whole thing. They will now scrap the whole project and start all over. thank you for the cliff notes version Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 maybe Plastic will give us his rendition as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 DMac, to what architectural presentation was this criticism addressed? And by whom?I'd love to see the original concept and the proposed changes, and whether they're as dire as the critic makes them out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 maybe Plastic will give us his rendition as well.STawp pikkinge On PLastick!. Your Are ALL sow MEEn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 STawp pikkinge On PLastick!. Your Are ALL sow MEEn!know hee dint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Right!And to thank that all that teaching @ a young age apparently didn't stick or else when you advance your profession thru higher education they teach just the opposite. Pick up any government doc today and you get a damned headache trying to read thru all the garbage.RespectfullyDannyThis isn't a goverment document, this is a topic on the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMac Posted December 6, 2006 Author Share Posted December 6, 2006 DMac, to what architectural presentation was this criticism addressed? And by whom?I'd love to see the original concept and the proposed changes, and whether they're as dire as the critic makes them out to be.to what architetural presentation was this criticism addressed? correspondence dated May 21, 1923 from the firm of Cram & Ferguson to the Reverend Father Harris Masterson Jr. {chair} for library Bldg. committee.I'd love to see the original concept and the proposed changes ALL 5 schemes and plans along w/, drawings, photos & correspondence etc. are available for review to the public as historical research data on the 2nd Flr. of the Julia Ideson library downtown.RespectfullyDanny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 maybe Plastic will give us his rendition as well.Music, Plastic wouldn't know how to get that many windows fitted in his apartment on top of his Mom's garage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Music, Plastic wouldn't know how to get that many windows fitted in his apartment on top of his Mom's garage.Hmmm....I always pictured him in a van down by the river. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinite_jim Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 this sounds like a traditional Beax-Arts educated architect, who is critical of his architectural statement being aborted by the actual builder, go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.