Strangelove Posted December 5, 2005 Report Share Posted December 5, 2005 What the title says. Assume that in a freak accident, the White House has been burnt down. The Government asks Howard Roark (or any Objectivist minded architect) to redesign a new White House. How would do you imagine the home of the executive branch should look like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmMetaphysical Posted December 23, 2005 Report Share Posted December 23, 2005 Good question. I am not an architect so I have no idea, but I would love to see what kind of building Roark would build. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) What the title says. Assume that in a freak accident, the White House has been burnt down. The Government asks Howard Roark (or any Objectivist minded architect) to redesign a new White House. How would do you imagine the home of the executive branch should look like? Freak accident? hmmmmmmmmm. You sure we shouldn't call the FBI? (joking) Does anything about the architecture of the White House or its history suggest that the White House isn't designed for maximum efficiency or functionality? In other words...what makes you think Roark would do anything any differently? Despite not knowing the explicit philosophy of Objectivism, many people still follow the basic tenets and live for themselves (which is why a lot of people find Objectivism and have reactions like, "Oh...I already believed most of these principles."). Thus, why does the white house and Objectivist architecture have to be mutually exclusive right now? Is the White House deficient in any way or could it be improved upon (considering cost, size, security demands, etc)? Edited January 21, 2006 by Evan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Joseph Sandberg Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 (edited) Is the White House deficient in any way or could it be improved upon (considering cost, size, security demands, etc)? I suggest you read The Fountainhead again. Edited January 1, 2007 by Andrew Joseph Sandberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dargormudshark Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 He'd make it a skyscraper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 You know, this almost works as an Objectivist joke: Q: How would Howard Roark redesign the White House? A: Superbly. or possibly: A: Efficiently. With all-new materials and techniques. And for one tenth the cost of the current White House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMERICONORMAN Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 A good question to answer is: what rooms would you require? Jose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 What the title says. Assume that in a freak accident, the White House has been burnt down. The Government asks Howard Roark (or any Objectivist minded architect) to redesign a new White House. How would do you imagine the home of the executive branch should look like? I don't know how Roark would do it, but one Objectivist architect I know would do it quite differently. He does not like the design of the White House. He very much likes John Lloyd Wright's style of architecture. When I earn enough money I plan to get him to make my house. He is the only architect I know of in New Zealand that likes The Roark style on architecture. The rest produce the typical crap. He also comments on architecture on his blog a lot, which is understandable. Freak accident? hmmmmmmmmm. You sure we shouldn't call the FBI? (joking) Does anything about the architecture of the White House or its history suggest that the White House isn't designed for maximum efficiency or functionality? In other words...what makes you think Roark would do anything any differently? Despite not knowing the explicit philosophy of Objectivism, many people still follow the basic tenets and live for themselves (which is why a lot of people find Objectivism and have reactions like, "Oh...I already believed most of these principles."). Thus, why does the white house and Objectivist architecture have to be mutually exclusive right now? Is the White House deficient in any way or could it be improved upon (considering cost, size, security demands, etc)? I would say it does note at all adhere to Roark's style. To quote Andrew: I suggest you read The Fountainhead again. A good question to answer is: what rooms would you require? Jose. Depends on what sort of government it was. A capitalist government would need less rooms than a statist one. Oh, and Roark would only work for the former, never the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrassDragon Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 A good question to answer is: what rooms would you require? Jose. Of course it has to have a Lincoln bedroom 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.