--- Ralph Walter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I don't understand what the difference is either,
> but I'm afraid it basically
> comes down to a highly sophisticated combination of
> Neo-Ludditism,
> professional success envy, and "It looks funny so I
> don't like it."  I'd
> rather have a more rational objection, and there
> really is something that
> bothers me about these buildings being undesignable
> and unbuildable without
> computers. On the other hand, I have no objection to
> your Opera House, at
> least based on the exterior views I've seen.

I'd have to say that this smacks of a case of a
dislike of the new.  It took Ove Arup & Partners
several years to develop a buildable method of
supporting the roof shells for the Sydney Opera House,
and the only reason they achieved it in that time was
by advancing the use of computers for calculation way
beyond any previous level.

The interior spaces of the Opera House are quite
inefficient, but then some of that may be because
Utzon was replaced by some local triers when it came
to doing the interiors.  Certainly, there are
continuing complaints about the poor acoustic
performance of the halls - which brings into question
the whole functionality of the building (although
these days it would be possible to argue that it is
probably more important as an icon and landmark than
as a concert hall and opera house!).

What I find interesting about our dialogue is that I
sense that there is more here than Ralph being
cornered by right angles, and david dancing with the
dodgy curves.  It seems to me that you are coming from
some deep-seated intuitive source, because after all
the use of right angles is part of so much building.
Yet there are many other patterns for packing or
joining spaces or volumes in nature that are just as
efficient, if not more so.  So why is the human race
so hung up on right angles when bees use hexagonal
packing and pine trees and spiders are into Fibonacci
sequences?

david

http://my.yahoo.com.au - My Yahoo!
- It's My Yahoo! Get your own!