|
|
|
|
|
|
|
imnotclever
Oct 17, 2007, 6:50 PM
Post #2 of 10
(430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000
|
Only an architect could write this crap. I couldn't read all of it.
In reply to: In this investigation we have focused on the development of concrete masonry units within this context. Our premise was to evaluate the virtues and deficiencies of concrete block and its full life-cycle, identify specific pragmatic changes that could occur, and conduct physical design research within new pragmatic limits. Guided by these limits, we have strived to improve upon the performance and character of concrete block. The audience for this research is production companies interested in refining their product for economic and ecological reasons, governmental agencies interested in a holistic view of industrial evolution, and specifiers (builders, architects, designers) interested in a wall with more integrity, efficiency and life; one that might offer a maximum of effect with a minimum of means.
Just say: look we've made a new CMU.
And I'll say, oh (yawn) does it meet ASTM C90?
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Oct 17, 2007, 8:42 PM
Post #3 of 10
(404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
imnotclever wrote: Only an architect could write this crap. I couldn't read all of it. In reply to: In this investigation we have focused on the development of concrete masonry units within this context. Our premise was to evaluate the virtues and deficiencies of concrete block and its full life-cycle, identify specific pragmatic changes that could occur, and conduct physical design research within new pragmatic limits. Guided by these limits, we have strived to improve upon the performance and character of concrete block. The audience for this research is production companies interested in refining their product for economic and ecological reasons, governmental agencies interested in a holistic view of industrial evolution, and specifiers (builders, architects, designers) interested in a wall with more integrity, efficiency and life; one that might offer a maximum of effect with a minimum of means. Just say: look we've made a new CMU. And I'll say, oh (yawn) does it meet ASTM C90?
you don't like our cement block of a building?
|
|
|
|
|
imnotclever
Oct 17, 2007, 9:07 PM
Post #4 of 10
(398 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000
|
They're talking about masonry. These guys say rock faced block and though what other shapes could we make.
But they couldn't say it like that, because they're architects, so you get that gobbly gook crap that I quoted.
Looks like your building is cast in place concrete or precast concrete.
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Oct 17, 2007, 9:16 PM
Post #5 of 10
(392 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
Your first post referenced CMU.
In my vocabulary
CMU=Carnegie Mellon University
Additionally, CMU has one building (pictured) that is a block of cement with one classroom hanging off the side like a booger. It is horrible looking from an architect's point of view. So, I was just making a joke on that tangent.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Oct 17, 2007, 10:53 PM
Post #6 of 10
(379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Huh, looks more like a stairwell hanging off the side of the building like a booger.
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Oct 19, 2007, 1:06 PM
Post #7 of 10
(325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
imnotclever wrote: These guys say rock faced block and though what other shapes could we make.
In reply to: But they couldn't say it like that, because they're architects, so you get that gobbly gook crap that I quoted.
In reply to: Just say: look we've made a new CMU.
In reply to: And I'll say, oh (yawn) does it meet ASTM C90?
Of course, just about any contractor would bitch and moan about having to put a wall together with this stuff. The form is no great technical innovation, but it's no worse than most of the split face block to come out in the last 50 years. Plus, it could make for some interesting buildering...
|
|
|
|
|
chadnsc
Oct 19, 2007, 3:07 PM
Post #8 of 10
(306 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
imnotclever wrote: They're talking about masonry. These guys say rock faced block and though what other shapes could we make. But they couldn't say it like that, because they're architects, so you get that gobbly gook crap that I quoted. Looks like your building is cast in place concrete or precast concrete.
I don't think they couldn't say it like that because their architects. They wouldn't say it like that because they are a group of people who need to prove their intelligence by attempting to reinvent and improve a product that has been around for over 2,000 years. Unfortunately many of the masonry shapes that the firm is proposing have already been produced in the 60's. Production of these masonry shapes where stopped due to poor structural stability, difficulties in assembly, high cost, and their tendency to collect water. Not to mention that the masonry shapes where viewed as being a fad that would easily date a building.
Being an architect myself I often find that people in my field who work hard to reinvent the wheel fall into two categories; A truly visionary architect, or someone with a low self image who bases their self worth on their career. Unfortunately most fall into the second category.
|
|
|
|
|
imnotclever
Oct 19, 2007, 3:18 PM
Post #9 of 10
(303 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000
|
TYPICAL architect.
Here let me fix this for you:
imnotclever wrote: These guys sa w rock faced block and though t what other shapes could we make.
Anyway, if it's not hollow core, it'd be only a replacement for brick. That is non-structural, a facing only. Looks like it might be hollow core.
As for the buildering, I don't know about that either, some of the shapes look too easy and some look to hard, might work.
|
|
|
|
|
imnotclever
Oct 19, 2007, 3:31 PM
Post #10 of 10
(301 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000
|
Yeah Chad, you're right on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
