Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Elementary School

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

http://falmouthschools.org/

It hasn't been built yet, the concept of a new elementary school was recently voted on (yes), but I think it's going to be great. I really like the design - and I've seen the floor plans, there isn't an extra meter of space beyond what is needed to accommodate the rooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

and I've seen the floor plans, there isn't an extra meter of space beyond what is needed to accommodate the rooms.

As much as I like the idea of simplicity, I cannot sanction anything that was built with money stolen from others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Buildings like this seem to have become a trend atleast here in sweden. Sometimes, when they are well thought out, I can enjoy some aspects, but in general I find them appalling. Regarding this one I think the drawings should be burned and the architect(s) fired. The building is just badly interconnected boxes where the inside is split up to accomodate people. It's functional at best, but only in the most concrete-bound way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding this one I think the drawings should be burned and the architect(s) fired. The building is just badly interconnected boxes where the inside is split up to accomodate people. It's functional at best, but only in the most concrete-bound way.

Huh? it's a school. What would you suggest? A giant orgy-pool? I think it's perfect. I especially love how each grade has it's own wing with all the classrooms together.

"Functional at best"? wtf? Form follows function Alfa. If it is "functional at best" than that means it has accomplished one of the most important parts of "good" architecture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Functional at best"? wtf? Form follows function Alfa. If it is "functional at best" than that means it has accomplished one of the most important parts of "good" architecture.

Easy now... :P

It is functional in the way that it takes into account things like how the grades are split up(which you mentioned), how many people it should be able to accomodate, where the kitchen is etc. This is good, but it's done i a concrete bound way like; "Hey, let's put a few boxes toghether and make some rooms inside!".

What makes great architecture is the idea and the purpose of it. The idea defines the function, and contrary to what you say the form is the function.

In this case we see a minimalistic "design" where I assume the architect(s) has tried to make a very effective storage of children. Or to put it in a nicer and less assumptious way, the design looks purely "functional" - functional in this case meaning very concrete and lacking in abstraction. Aside from very practical aspects the architects value judgements seem left implicit and undefined.

To understand my criticism I think you must consider the nature of architecture as a form of art. Architecture is a bit different from other art forms in that it does not re-create reality, instead architecture creates it's own reality. A great painter can capture his vision of the world on a canvas, and when you look at that painting you are in a sense invited to that world. An achitect could build a house and invite you to it; that's his world and unlike a painting you can live in it.

I think this is very clear if you look at for example Frank Llooyd Wright's buildings. And unlike Wright, could you tell the architect of this school building apart from any other contemporary architect?

So here we have a very "functional" and minimalistic school building. The problem is, that's all there is to it. That's the world built for the elementary school children. I think it's rubbish.

Huh? it's a school. What would you suggest? A giant orgy-pool?

Yes, it's a school. What are you trying to say? And, why would I suggest something like that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The building is just badly interconnected boxes

Hey, let's put a few boxes toghether

You seem to be implying that just because a shape has four 90-degree angles, that it is intrinsically worthless.

Yes, it's a school. What are you trying to say? And, why would I suggest something like that?

As I said--it's a school... There have to be classrooms. Are you suggestion there should be oval classrooms? Organic curvy classrooms? Hexagon classrooms? NO classrooms? Because four walls and four right angles is always bad?

So here we have a very "functional" and minimalistic school building. The problem is, that's all there is to it.

So... what? We need gargoyles? Brilliant! Gargoyles in kindergarten rooms! Let's make those 5 year olds piss themselves with fear til they shut up and go to sleep! It's the PERFECT school! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to be implying that just because a shape has four 90-degree angles, that it is intrinsically worthless.

That's not at all what i'm implying. As I wrote, it's about the purpose.

As I said--it's a school... There have to be classrooms. Are you suggestion there should be oval classrooms? Organic curvy classrooms? Hexagon classrooms? NO classrooms? Because four walls and four right angles is always bad?

There has to be classrooms, in one form or another. Now, are you asking me to re-design the building? I'm sure I can make a better job of it, but i'm not an architect.

What i'm suggesting is that the building adhere to more abstract principles. Minimalistic cubes sliced up to accomodate rooms are for the most concrete-bound architects. For a school building you could for example consider things like how the teaching could(and should) be done, what sort of relationships do you want between the people in the building(teacher-student, student-student, etc), what sense of life do you want, can the environment help inspire thinking and creativity, how should the building and environment within relate to it's surroundings... I'm just writing down whatever consideration that comes to my mind, it does not really matter. The point is that every such consideration - and you can sure make it a lot more abstract and philosophical - matter for how the building should look.

I'm not saying it's wrong to divide the space into angular rooms. My objection is that the main consideration with this building seems to have been how to make it minimalistic and accomodate enough rooms.

So... what? We need gargoyles? Brilliant! Gargoyles in kindergarten rooms! Let's make those 5 year olds piss themselves with fear til they shut up and go to sleep! It's the PERFECT school! :lol:

No. I don't like neither ornamental nor minimalistic. I like good ideas and buildings that are raised accordingly. Do I seem like someone who likes gargoyles?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...