Its an aide.  A tool.  It works.  Put your calculator down.  Go out for 
a walk.  Look at the pretty buildings and find all the squares.  When 
you get your fill of squares, look for the rectangles.  Don't examine 
the widths of the mullions, its all make believe.  After the designer 
has assembled all his/her squares and golden rectangles, somebody who 
knows how buildings go togeter has to jump in and get the mullions 
detailed so that they can be built...and that person don't care much 
about no golden mullions.

-jc


On Feb 1, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Bruce Marcham wrote:

> A couple of thoughts come to mind.
>   
> It seems to me there must be some rules taught in Architecture School 
> (or maybe one has to have the right artistic sense) as to how to apply 
> this wonderful tool. If you apply it to a window, for instance, do you 
> say the outside of the molding (casings?) will use that ratio or is it 
> the panes of glass, the exposed dimension of the sashes, etc. or all 
> of them? Does it figure into the placement of the window and if so the 
> dimension up form the bottom of the clapboards?
>   
> The other thought I had is that I sometimes wonder if there isn't a 
> bit of numerology going on here, looking for "intended ratios" that 
> really are just the way things happened to fall out.
>   
> Question: In this day and age of off-the-shelf window, door, etc. 
> sizes do you know if the GR is incorporated into those sizes or are 
> they more geared toward the notion of starting with a 2x4 and 16" stud 
> spacings, 4x8 sheets of plywood, etc. (realizing that those things 
> really aren't that limiting if you're willing to put up with a bit of 
> waste). Lately I find myself planning a garage/barn but laying it out 
> in multiples of Mustang (the car--I own several and the other cars I 
> own are about the same size) dimensions and the idea of sticking with 
> two or four foot framing intervals. Obviously these examples are not 
> typical of architect-designed structures (at least not, shall we 
> say, artistically-designed ones) but I'm just pointing out how the 
> standard construction materials and other factors influence the design 
> process (at least of some out there in the field).
>  
> It would be interesting to find out how/when we got to using 2x4s, 
> which then became 1-1/2x3-1/2, and the 16" stud spacing (4x8 plywood, 
> etc.). After WWII to build the post-war housing for returning GIs? 
> Levittown?
>  
> Bruce
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pre-patinated plastic gumby block w/ coin slot 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Cuyler 
> Page
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BP] Golden Radio
>
> >>I tend to use it for placement of elements, more so than the actual 
> size and shape.
> The beautiful old 1877 Grist Mill and its accompanying store building, 
> both pioneer log structures, were both thoroughly designed using the 
> Golden Ratio.   Inside dimensions of the whipsawn log store were 
> accurate to the third decimal point, the inside width being 16'-2".   
> Not a standard number, but everything measurable in the building fit 
> into the system or game plan.   Door and window sizes and placements, 
> fireplace location and dimensions, rafter tie height and the resulting 
> ceiling  -  all were multiples and divisions of Golden Ration 
> proportions, everything linking together is an amazing and delightful 
> continuous chain of calculations when one went on a hunt of 
> discovery.   Things I never expected fit into the system through the 
> buildings, including plans and elevations.   The game was often very 
> elaborate, like good music, full of mental twists and turns, including 
> things like the width of fascia boards in different areas being 
> proportioned to the size of the gable, and all being proportioned to 
> the Golden Ratio standard.
>  
> I have found the same in other buildings from the late 1800's more 
> often than I expected, including industrial buildings with thorough 
> Golden Ratio proportions.    It seems that whenever a designer began 
> to use the GR system, it was often used down to the finest details.   
> It certainly isn't universal, but like good jazz, once you feel it and 
> get to like it, you get hooked.   The problem is when someone becomes 
> myopic and doesn't look for the other systems, or lack of any system, 
> in buildings too.   Lots of those !
>  
> cp in bc