the shapes of space
- To: domesteading at sculptors dot com
- Subject: the shapes of space
- From: Anton Sherwood <dasher at netcom dot com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:05:12 -0800 (PST)
Michael Rowland writes
: ... in most box
: houses (including the one I'm living in now), I don't get much of a
: feeling of the space it encloses. (Frank Lloyd Wright's houses would be
: exceptions to this, at least for me.) Most box houses seem to enclose or
: divide space without ever really defining it or communicating a sense of
: it ... without awakening a spatial response in the viewer.
I may be too much of an old-fashioned linear patriarchal dualist ;)
to grok what that means (or why you care). Do you mean boxy *rooms*
lose the shape of the *whole* house, or what?
: Another guy I know has recently read a book called "A pattern Language"
: and has come away with the idea that domes are miserable pieces of shit
: that will turn their inhabitants in to miserable troglodytes [...]
: He also thinks that
: people are genetically inclined to live in boxes, another idea he
: apparently got from the above book.
_A Pattern Language_ does say that rectangles have some advantages:
most importantly, it's easy to cluster them so that all spaces,
including any alcoves formed on the outside of the cluster, are
convex or nearly so.
My copy is lent out so I can't comment in detail on any other points.
Don't let that put you off _APL_: most of its advice, I think,
can be applied to a dome or any other shape.
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom dot com
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and