Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Lesson Plans


Re: a&e.a

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
robertb713
Sun, 12 Oct 1997 08:53:53 -0700


I think that we can respect nature and attempt to work around it such as
some of the stuff that Wright did; however, it is almost impossible to
build without destroying some part of nature. I think your best bet is to
build underground.
On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 17:43:15 -0700 (MST) lindsie melluzzo
<melluzzo> writes:
>We noticed a section in this website relating to environmental design
>and
>began to uncover many reasons for creating architecture that blends in
>with
>the environment; therefore, preserving it rather than destroying the
>environment to show off a fancy building. On one hand, this concept
>seems
>like a good idea, but what are the realities of the construction
>process?
>For example, nature is disrupted by the first shovel that hits the
>dirt.
>Is this considered conserving the environment? Or are we fooled by
>its
>appearance? Frank Lloyd Wright prides himself on being an
>environmentally
>conscious architect. Wright states that "architecture should blend
>into
>the land and should follow the earth's line." What are his main
>concerns:
>That his architecture be aesthetic or the environment be preserved? Or
>is
>it possible to do both?
>
>Any wishing to respond, feel free.
>
>
>Cindy, Lindsie and Lisa
>University of Arizona
>Art Education students
>
>
>
>