13 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2016
    1. sub­stance— it is a material reality— and content— it evokes images, ideas, and meanings for its users

      If someone were to study the architecture of the houses in southern Louisiana that Ben Brown talks about in "Unpredictable, High Risk, High Cost: Planning for the Worst is the Worst", they would find no substance most likely, only content, which could actually lead them in some interesting directions with their research.

    2. indicators of our cultural values.

      In "Unpredictable, High Risk, High Cost: Planning for the Worst is the Worst", Ben Brown argues that natural disasters are going to start occurring more frequently, which means we'll need to start designing our buildings to protect ourselves, so how will a change in design reveal what our cultural values were to the people of the future? Perhaps, it will reveal that our own safety was most valued by us. Maybe we'll start to see more buildings being destroyed by natural disasters like in the case of Louisiana. In which case, the people of the future may not be as tied to history as we are now.

    3. Culture is unseen and immaterial, consisting of the ideas, values, and beliefs of a particular social group or society

      I would think that this makes culture extremely hard to study. It must be really hard to find hard, aboluste cultural evidence to use for research. All you can really do is observe people and read things that they've written, which would make your evidence really subjective to whoever made it.

    4. humans cannot simply live in nature

      In "Unpredictable, High Rise, High Cost...", Ben Brown argues that not only can we not simply live in nature, but we can't live beside it either. It attacks us, so we need to find ways to get around it. Could the study of vernacular architecture lead to any improvements in how we design buildings to withstand natural disasters?

    5. So it comes as no surprise that researchers fall back on the customary written sources when confronting buildings as evidence. They find bits and pieces of information

      Vernacular researchers are kind of half archeologists too.

  2. Sep 2016
    1. We simply need more training.

      I wonder what kind of techniques a vernacular researcher would use to study a building. I imagine they'd be able to tell what period a building was from or what the decoration is based off of. Would they use chemicals to study the actual materials used to make the house?

    2. Very little,” you might say.

      I would say that, yes.

    3. the building permit might reveal the date when the house was con­structed and even give the name of its builder; the diary might talk about specific events that occurred in the house; the letter might describe how one of the rooms in

      Even though all of these documents could be classified as archeological findings or show the subjective view of one of the buildings inhabitants, vernacular researchers are able to relate them all back to the structure itself.

    4. ndividual buildings, assemblages of such buildings, and entire architectural landscapes

      This answers my question about ordinary buildings. I was right, art architecture and sculptures are not included.

    5. axiom

      Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

    6. spaced far apart in the countryside or separated by just a few feet in urban neighborhoods

      In Dr. Fernandez's class we had a discussion that ties in very closely with this. We discussed how different cultures view personal space. We found that in America, private space is valued more than public space, but in a place like Africa, public space is valued because they share a lot of things like their places of residence and the very ground below their feet.

    7. ordi­nary buildings

      What do they mean by "ordinary buildings"? I'm assuming they're referring to buildings with an actual use as opposed to more abstract art architecture.

    8. Vernacular Architecture

      In "Unpredictable, High Risk, High Cost: Planning for the Worst is the Worst", Ben Brown argues that the way we prepare for natural disasters is extremely inefficient. He argues that instead of being a political matter wherein pointless grants are being thrown around all over the place, it should be dealt with by non-profit organizations, local businesses, and scientists. According to Brown, the constant interference by the government into the matter is slowly nudging out scientific practice and discovery. Scientists have found that the probability of natural disasters is slowly on the rise, and we need to find a more efficient way of dealing with them in order to survive the coming years. Even the mass displacement of people in the effected area is more efficient than what we're doing right now.

      Brown, Ben. "Unpredictable, High Risk, High Cost: Planning for the Worst is the Worst." Place Makers, 23 Aug. 2016,http://www.placemakers.com/2016/08/23/planning-for-the-worst-is-the-worst/. Accessed 5 Sep. 2016.