I'm in architecture school right now and quite honestly, I feel lost and overwhelmed. But this video has helped me sort out a couple of things about designing in really accessible way. Thank you so much :)
@Aniket Lunkad This is what he likes, don't discourage him, I'm 14 and also interested in this career. Something tells me you just don't have the attitude to learn.
I say go for it. Try playing around with SketchUp it's a good easy to use starting point. RU-vid vids can teach you the basics to get going. I started off as an engineer and ended up as a project lead. You learn as you go and your interest might evolve, but you'll only know if you give it a go. All the best buddy.
I'm an architect. Study architecture history. Having a vast knowledge of what's been done will help you substantially. Study the ones you love. Diagram them. Recreate them physically or digitally. Look at floor plans, building sections, wall details. One thing I did do right. Every job I had in high school was related to understanding the layers of a house. I worked on new construction houses, I installed windows, I worked as a house cleaner (this helped with understanding what gets dirty and the way different people utilizes their houses), if you want to design residential housing you could diagram how people use the spaces your already in (keep a sketch book with you at all times, sketch movement through spaces, sketch the way people use objects in other ways then the way they were intended, sketch floor plans you like, sketch facades you like, how do those facades relate to the inside, how do they connect the interior and exterior)
I have never had any formal training in architecture and design, though I have always had a great interest in art, history etc. I must say, I completely agree with all your assessment of the bad examples - something just feels off to me intuitively. But when you explained it, a light kind of goes off and I am able to say, ah ha! that's why I sense what I sense!
Purpose and concept are crucial to good design. Form follows function, and that is as it should be. In fact, in my opinion if your function is excellent then the form will be beautiful. I believe that every decision you make as a designer should have a path of bread crumbs back to your concept. I'm not an architect, but I am an interior designer. My strongest designs have always begun with my strongest concepts.
I enjoyed your explanations, but I can't resist adding a comment about Seattle Public Library's iconic branch. I lived downtown for a decade from age 25 to 35 and visited often, so I speak from experience. The concept for continuity with the ramps makes library sense but not people sense. Seattle has a huge homeless population that uses that library like a halfway house. They have every right to be there, but from a security standpoint the layout makes hundreds of unsafe spaces where you can't see or be seen as you browse the stacks. They also put the main floor of computer terminals above their events auditorium with no effective sound barrier at all. Computer users have to listen to whatever book talk is going on anytime they use it. The childrens' area tells the real story of the place as it has a very necesary security guard's desk - but I would guess that they also spend a big part of their day redirecting tourists away from the toilets which are unavailable unless assisting kids. (The adult toilets can't be accessed directly from the main floor from 4th or 5th avenue. It's up a floor in the most annoyingly high-concept, dramatically-hued part of the branch. ) It's not the example I'd use, just sayin' ;)
The first example structure seems to be attempting to tell a story with the way it evolves with successive floors, and suggests that the disparate shapes represent separate and distinct usage programmes. The lower floors being symmetrical, orderly, more simple, more rigid and stocky, and even colored in darker tones seems to indicate predictable reliability: This is pragmatic 'getting things done' space, be it commercial or administrative. It's accessable, well suited for the reception of visitors, and relatively easy to navigate and rationally understand one's own position within these levels of the structure. The upper floors with their exotic shapes, balconies, patios, windows, and vistas are a distinct contrast, where one is invited to WANDER and WONDER rather than exert committed effort toward a goal. Its meandering layout suggests that one must take one's time to find one's way, requiring more of one's attention to navigate and therefore stimulate a much more mindful and novel experience. With its many navigational endpoints culminating in scenic spaces whose function is aesthetic in nature, it practically DEMANDS that an occupant slow down, pay attention, and take in the view, creating a sense of intimacy with one's time.
I felt my calling In life scream at me!! I loved this thank you 🙏 Especially when you said design should begin with function in mind followed by aesthetics
Doing CAD for freshman year next year, and wanna just get a few tips before jumping in. I wanna be an architect when I get older, but I suuucckkk at designing. Thanks for this!
Thank you , it was great video and i think it is great, precise steps we need to learning. I’m an interior designer and I benefited greatly in my work👌🏼
The first building you showed was fascinatingly beautiful and captivatingly interesting in my opinion...it appears to me as a combination of organic and manmade...a sort of treehouse...how can you not like this?
It was just a little too crazy. It was like if a guy had messed up hair, shaved half of his face, and donned a shirt that had a collar and long-sleeve on one side, while being a t-shirt with a short-sleeve on the other side. Maybe great for a party, but too crazy for regular life. Not that you want boring monotony. But that building just went a little too far, in my opinion.
i really like this video. the language is simple enough to let anyone feels that he can understand and willing to continue to listen. the principles mentioned in the video I cannot agree more. although design is subjective, but human got something in common which I guess could be the part that objective but also right. thank you for the sharing.
Yes, most of the points seems to be good. But the simplicity and complexity of the design depends on the narrative and also the clients. Some might doesn’t make sense in your opinion but might make sense for the owner (the client). You presented about the alignments and other stuff , but this is not a general rules I guess. Jus depends on what the client wants and the story behind the building. A normal client who only cares about aesthetics might only focus on how beautiful the house is, whether the alignment, scale and proportions might varies on his or her’s needs. I guess if we put everything of these ideas as a default all of the buildings will look the same and under the same way of architectural approach and creativity. Overall I like the points which u said but jus wanna remind the viewers that we shouldn’t think everything as fixed in architecture.
My advice would be to not get too analytical about what "concept" is - reading up on cool projects combined with good construction knowledge is enough to get most people going.
Sir, I request to prepare a video about creating 2D Plan for a House only Ground Floor, I need to know why the maximum Architects when giving Training in AutoCAD do not Talk about levels or even Never draw levels before drafting plans in AutoCAD. Is it right or wrong? I am a Learning Draftsman loving Architecture. Please make a video for me and for other Beginner Level's People like me to understand Basic drafting and levels. Mohammad Bilal
If the point of a building is to draw visitors, then such an outward shape does have a purpose, and the interiors must be creatively designed to still be optimal functional space. I am sure the architect had quite a bit of fun (or not) with that!
সিভিল ইঞ্জিনিয়ার পড়ছি আমার জন্য আন্তরিকভাবে দোয়া করবেন যাতে আমি সারাবিশ্বে ফার্স্ট ক্লাস ফার্স্ট বিশ্বসেরা বিশ্বমানের সিভিল ইঞ্জিনিয়ার হতে পারি বা হতে চাই ইনশাআল্লাহ।আমৃত্যু এই মহাবিশ্বের ফার্স্ট ক্লাস ফার্স্ট ক্লাস ফার্স্ট আধ্যাত্তিক সিভিল ব্যারিষ্টার হতে চাই ইনশাআল্লাহ অনেক অনেক অনেক অনেক অনেক চিরস্থায়ী ভাবে আশির্বাদ করবেন ইনশাআল্লাহ।to
hi .. architectural design has always been and will always be subjective - there is never wrong or right, just a matter of appropriate or not - even that is subjective. It is all about justification of design. eg: the first example of the Tel Aviv apartment - a lot of negative outlook but we need to get to the source of the design - the owner and the architect - we can't simply judge. There's always motive behind it all - maybe the owner wanted a provoking architecture - who knows. Anyway, to the author of this video, tQ for your time and effort, architectural design is very personal and we should not impose our views too much on the works of others. At least it has been built.
Criticism makes us better designers. He was very cordial about his analysis. We have the right to “impose” our views on other’s public works. It’s subjective that YOU feel it as imposing 😂 so sensitive
@Isabel Green wrong. I think your being one of “those” negative commenters. I think the video crossed from criticism to a statement easily. He clearly states unless the design puts functionality over aesthetic its a bad design. To the original commenter, sorry I got you late before ^ this guy. Ignore the toxicity on RU-vid.
People don't typically know this, but "McMansions" existed long before fastfood chains made the risk taking owners into "new money" - whenever there has been "new money" there has been awful architecture, so think of any industrial revolution and then look at the plethora of buildings designed and built at the time. You will see a tasteless mixture of multiple styles, usually derived from people taking a "tour of the continent" (Europe). Consistency mattered/matters very little, only showing off how much you can put into your property to make it "flashy"
"McMansions" equal "lack of taste". Worse is when they're crammed into a lot where there's barely two feet of grass on the perimeter (like a hipster beard) in an area of homes of "normal" sized homes.
I had to stop at the concept section. Just because you do not enjoy one type does not make it wrong. It’s very possible that the client commissioned those very type of buildings as they were obviously built. So to tell someone that is the incorrect way to design is wrong.
As soon as I hear a architect say “functionality over aesthetics is a rule to be proper”, I leave. It’s too bad. You seem like you would have a lot of knowledge to share.
I disagree. I think the basket building and the randomly assorted building were dope. Imagine having the ability to make a basket building work practically and how the work environment is when everyone has to shop up to a basket everyday. It looks to have an ample amount of lighting too. There are different ways to tackle architecture. Deconstructionism would be the basket. The examples you seem to admire are structures that are made from the perspective of functionality which is fantastic. There is no wrong way. And basket building can be made with prime functionality in consideration.
You lost me at loving the Seattle library. I may be old school however the lighting inside is a gloomy blue cast, I find it not welcoming at all. The ramp I find it unfriendly I don’t want to take a hike. I want to find my book and get out. The library front desk is sterile and unfriendly. Overall, I find the Seattle library not inviting or welcoming. It’s just playing gloomy!
