h a l f b a k e r yWe got your practicality ... right here.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
If you look out of the window in a busy city, all you see are large rectangular blocks that look like smog. How great it would be to look at architecture like StBasil's cathedral, the Louvre, etc, in your own city. The easy way to achieve this would be to use the golden ratio. This would result in
both beautiful box skyscrapers and some really excentric spiral buildings, with corkscrew sculpture in their landing, and other pleasing buildings useing one of the oldest known mathematicl irrational number.
[Jason and the argonauts for math, go in search of theta and his golden ratio]
[link]
|
| |
Simple economics makes buildings boxy, boring and functional. Yeah, I wish buildings were prettier too. I also wish I had a million dollars... whatever. Lame. |
|
| |
You seem to be under the confused notion that use of the golden ratio is somehow either necessary or sufficient to produce good architecture. It is neither. |
|
| |
Use of the golden ratio in architecture is, of course, as old as antiquity. |
|
| |
Indeed, but if every building used the golden ratio, which most uildings today do *not* then buildings would be pleasing to the eye. And the golden ratio can sufficiently produce good architecture, egnor. |
|
| |
You think if cities were full of large rectangular blocks that look like smog, but built *in the golden ratio*, that they would look more like St. Basil's Cathedral or the Louvre? |
|
| |
Not to repeat myself, but the thing holding back good architecture is not that nobody's ever thought of using the golden ratio, but that building owners simply don't want to spend money and waste space on "eccentric spiral buildings" and the like. |
|
| |
("Oh! That's what we've been missing, the *golden ratio*! Now all our big grey concrete cube buildings will be *pretty*, and eccentric spirals will suddenly appear out of nowhere, and it won't cost any more than before! Thank you, sctld, you've saved the day again!") |
|
| |
egnor: The golden ratio has been proven to be eye pleasing, so a tuck hear and an elongation their would *indeed* make it look better. |
|
| |
[Is egnor a phonetic equivelent of ignore?] |
|
| |
I've spent a great deal of time with Golden Ratio designs myself. In order to break things down, I went the whole route, used Compass, etc. Once a person understands how to let the numbers do the work, the Compass is no longer necessary to lay things out. No spiral need exist if one doesn't want it to. Either way-results are a joy. a/b=b/a+b |
|
| |
There's a long, long way between
"eye-pleasing proportions" and
"StBasil's cathedral, the Louvre,
etc", let alone "really excentric
[sic] spiral buildings, with
corkscrew sculpture in their landing". |
|
| |
Architecture, even modern, ugly,
boxy, architecture, does use the
Golden Ratio in many cases. In
many other cases, it is not
possible; the plot of land may be
a certain size, and economics and
zoning laws may dictate the height. |
|
| |
"Egnor" is my name. It's
pronounced with with a short 'e',
not a short 'i', as in "Neither
>egg nor< chicken am I." You are,
however, free to ignore me, and
you even have the power to delete
my annotations, should you wish. |
|
| |
Trouble is, architecture seems to be a shotgun marriage of function and aesthetics. No divorce possible yet, given the economics of building materials and land. To make it worse, fashions change and yesterday's cool postmodern concrete-and-glass cantilevered double-pyramid is today's eyesore. sctld, would you settle for neo-neoclassicism? |
|
| |
Egnor, ican't delete your annotations, it is unethical. The whole idea of deleting annotations goes against the UN declaration of human rights, and besides, if i deleted someones annotation it would mean that i have no respect for them. |
|
| |
[Respect the man who speaks his mind, for he does respect you] |
|
| |
I'm with Rod's Tiger, I would like to see some fractal architecture. That would be messed up. |
|
| |
How 'bout a Mobius building, we'd have a wild time with elevators. Hmmm... but I guess that wouldn't work in three dimensions, nevermind. |
|
| |
You could have two Mobius buildings from one if you cut a klein bottle in half, but then where would you live? |
|
| |
I think i'll stick with my rural bungalow, with large spiral back garden, with intersecting circles and golden ratioi shed where i keep my g.... |
|
| |
Aesthetically pleasing shapes are forms are not limited to the Golden ratio derived geometry. A good architect relies anything from symmetrical to asymmetrical shapes and forms. Not to mention grid, pattern, fractal, non-Euclidean geometry, chaos theory etc etc. |
|
| |