I will now revert to my true cynical self, and advise that "houses" is/was a publication of the RAIA certainly, but the contributors pay to be there, and as such it is no arbiter of what is good, rather it is a bundle of ads, where architects attempt to seduce prospective clients with work that they determine will be attractive to a particular segment of the community!
NEVER mistake the winner of an architectural award for a particularly competent piece of architecture! That would be like thinking an oscar winning movie was a supreme example of that craft. Both may be, but they are more likely to be popularist pieces designed to attract the vote their peers.
I think that is where you are wrong. I have been in a position of engaging consultants for the past fifteen years, and you have to believe that the development industry does not survive if it does not get economical work.Quote:
Good architects, CAN do economical work, but its rare. Untill its common then architecture has to live with the view of the general populace about expense and practicality.
The view of the general populace in the scheme of things doesn't matter all that much to the practice of architecture, it's the development industry from which it derives the vast majority of its income.
Note I am talking the VAST MAJORITY, not all here.
I am also surprised at how often architects take the flack for things well out of their control, in a debate such as this, people are happy to differenciate between architect and designer, yet how many times have you heard someone talk about the "mistakes of their architect" when talking about some backyard draftie?
Hmmm, I'm not really on thread here am I?
I'll try again later!
P
:D:D:D