What Is The Differences Between The Bertram House And The Bertram House?

The house is different from other houses in the sense that, it didn’t allude to a real house. The house is an image of many ideas

Admire and embrace the similarities and differences between the Greek Revival, Italianate, Gothic, Georgian, Swiss Chalet and Queen Anne. Notice which stately residence lean towards the simple moldings and columns to the tall massive arched columns and elongated windows; see pitched roofs and square towers.

To consider the similarities and differences of the aforementioned aspects of the house types, it necessitates first to define the terms under which the comparisons are made.

West Des Moines holds a wide range of structural appearances that possess different purposes and stand for different ideas. Variation sets buildings and its surrounding areas that are privately owned apart from those that are open to the public. Although, the significance behind structures may go into deeper meanings. Some hold specific purposes that involve religion while others stand to serve on more secular grounds. If we take the time to look around, we can discover how interior and exterior design conveys distinct meaning. By entering into these buildings, we may discover the diverse functions they serve in relation to structural engineering and unique aesthetics. The framework for centralized control within different societal environments

A popular, dominating style of home in Colonial America was the “Georgian” which can be traced to the prime of Europe, the Italian Renaissance. Georgian homes as presented lay on a raised foundation and are held by multiple pilasters, which happen to be equally distributed, for another characteristic of these early homes is symmetry. When the line of symmetry is drawn or imagined, the two halves appear identical. From even further than the ground up, from the foundation above, both houses have pillars, pilasters, windows, wood, glass, chimneys and so on of uniform size and style. Even the entablature that lies above the windows and columns appear to have no variation. Within this symmetrical design, there is stability, a decrease in the possibility that the house may cave in; rather than asymmetry, which has a higher likelihood of collapse.

“The good building is not one that hurts the landscape, but one which makes the landscape more beautiful than it was before the building was built” (Frank Lloyd Wright). Throughout the centuries, architecture has fascinated everyone. History is inscribed in buildings and they can express the political and economic power of a nation. Although time has gone by, buildings have not. You can still idolize ancient Egyptian and Greek architecture and see how the events that occurred at that time influenced them.

“Learning to read architecture-an ability that centers on a kind of visual and spatially oriented analysis-is not easy” (Carter & Cromley, 2005, p. xvi).The short history of the field makes this guide a valuable tool for emerging scholars as it introduces the field, guides them to conducting research on vernacular buildings, and invites them in participating in shaping the field by adding their own scholarship. What is significant about this guide for young researchers is that is explains how fieldwork lacks categorical clarity and can be messy, and it is in this confusion that researchers can reveal the priorities, values, and lifestyle of the users. Renovations and additions are part of the built form and it results in making it difficult to categorize material, roof type, and windows resulting in the struggle to categorize as the field work becomes more descriptive than prescriptive. It can and does indicate social hierarchies and power dynamics within the culture, by reading this guide young scholars can begin to understand how to read buildings and understand what they tell us. Material culture and vernacular architect explores the relationship between objects and/or buildings with people, and both

the International Style, it would be more suitable to be describe as a further development from the draft “Farnsworth House”, with rich historical and critical exegesis upon the style, combined with an objective disengagement, an appropriation influenced and developed from the Farnsworth House and the historical architectural principles. (Jacobus, 1962, p.24 ) For example, Henry-Russell Hitchcock has claimed that one difference between the Glass House and Farnsworth House is, the living space is not the interior in daytime for six months of the year deal to the positioning of the house and the reflection of the glass-wall created. The living space in the period of time will be re-defined as the surrounding grassed terrace, as well as the valley

They perceived social attributes of the architectural features as important. The appropriate alterations for building front (e.g., entrance and porch), height and scale were to solidify community’s demographic character and strengthen their social bond and diversity. However, this study illustrated that a controversy can arise in the pursuit of social bond and diversity. For instance, the desire for protection of the existing residents from gentrification conflicted with the desire for social diversity (i.e. building height and scale) in this study. Furthermore, participants evaluated an acceptable change depending on how the original features were, on how they had been modified and how they have been currently serving a social function. (i.e., building entrances and porches). The affordability and practicality of the features were also important issues. Wealthy Heights was historically a working class neighborhood. Many low income families still live in this district to this day. Such a recognition seems associated with the issues and influential to the importance and/or acceptable treatments for the materials. Interestingly, these concerns resulted in participants’ interest in construction materials and technology for a green

He preferred the distinction because of “what it implies. It implies a structure, a kind of analysis, as well as a kind of tradition behind it.” In 1945 John Entenza, using his magazine Art & Architecture, started the Case Study Houses Program as part of his attempts to further modernism. The Case Study Houses “aimed to produce contemporary solutions to house design and to offer prototypes from which low- and medium-cost housing could be developed.” Charles was involved in designing two Case Study Houses, both located in Pacific Palisades, his own house as well as John Entenza’s. The Eames house was designed with Ray, with initial contributions from Eero, and the second Entenza house was fabricated through contributions of both Charles and Eero Saarinen. They created two houses that shared a site, architect, and basic steel frame, but differed completely in form. They have been called “technological twins but architectural opposites.”

A common question asked, “What were these buildings made out of?” Most of these buildings were Half Timbered. Made up of mostly wood and had extremely large windows. The timbers that the architects used were usually very tall and widely spaced out.( Alchin, 1) Individual’s houses consisted of high chimneys, pillared porches, overhanging first floors, galleries, and vertical and diagonal timbers. These aspects made them strike into these

Different architects have different styles because they are trying to get at different things. Architecture is not just about making something beautiful anymore, it is about trying to get across a set of ideas about how we inhabit space. Two of the most famous architects of the twentieth century, one from each side, the early part and the later part up until today each designed a museum with money donated by the Guggenheim foundation. One of these is in New York City, it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The other is in bilbao, Spain, and it was designed by Frank Geary. My purpose of this paper is to interrogate each of these buildings, glorious for different reasons, to show how each architect was expressing their own style.

In the era of constant networking and relaying of information, the world has become a much smaller place. The shrinking world has somewhat become a familiar spectacle of identical fads and lifestyles. At least in the developed countries, globalisation has given birth to homogenous consumer culture. Demonstrated not only by the expansion of multi-national cooperations such as Apple and Starbucks but also by the indistinct architecture. It is a common sighting in urban cities today to see the identical steel, concrete and glass structures. This occurrence might be innate due to the easy exportation of concepts and architects, however not obligatory. Whilst advancing towards a modern society, architects have adapted this “universal style” of architecture that fails to represent the unique topography of different cities. Architects have the choice to either “repeat the same building everywhere or to push ourselves forward, to create an encounter between ourselves and the local culture” (Koolhaas, 2012). If the notion of Critical Regionalism were to be practiced by architects through the integration of the local culture with modern techniques, it could potentially return the missing identities of these cities.

“ Architecture organizes and structures space for us, and its interiors and the objects enclosing and inhabiting its rooms can facilitate or inhibit our activities by the way they use this language”(Lawson pg.6).

Architecture can be viewed with two different types of properties. Properties that can be seen like shapes, their composition, the spaces they create and, the colours and textures that make up their appearance. These properties are considered to be visual while other properties are considered to be abstract. These properties can only be described using words; the meanings behind the architecture and the stories that can be told about it. The context, its cultural background and its function also affects how we view architecture. The question is, what