Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The reviews continue - everyone gets a beer

The 15th has come and gone, there is no end in sight for employee reviews, more than 3 people have left, and the new guy never showed up for work - even after he was hired. Though CM had the closest guess, there are no winners so I guess we all win. We can all go celebrate with a beer. Except for John, because he is in San Francisco and is busy studying the interrelationships of Feng Shui and urban planning. Hint: If you have an architectural firm with a policy of yearly performance reviews, you might want to actually have the reviews before you have no employees left to review.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Blog Action Day

Today is Blog Action Day. We’re not sure if the Shrub has declared it a national holiday or not but if you are browsing the blogosphere today, you’ll likely notice that everyone is writing about the environment in some way or another. We’ll try to be serious for 5 seconds and contribute to this.

We’ve done a little browsing and there is some great stuff going on out there but in all of the chatter about composting, wind farms, and hybrid vehicles, it’s very easy to lose focus. We are all on this planet for a pretty short period of time – and then we’re gone. You would think that with such a finite existence, we would take the time and exert the effort to enjoy one another’s company just a little. Our advice for a better environment is this: Smile.

What is the point of the world being here forever and what is the point of prolonged life if we don’t get along – or at least be amused by each other’s existence? People are pretty damned entertaining if you just give them a chance. If you hate people, you can even fake it so you don't ruin it for everyone else. Hey, if this guy can do it, anyone can.
Have a nice day!

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Architect must be boycotted

The magazine, Architect, must be boycotted. Do architects actually read this shit? This stuff might be great for Annie Choi’s friends but who else picks it up? You know you are in trouble when a guy with Le Corbusier glasses is on the front cover and his last name isn’t Johnson. This, in our minds, is going too far.

We though that the magazine was flawed from the start but were willing to give it a chance. We also thought that really had it coming. They are the ones responsible for that horrible salary article a while back. This is great for people like us that like to criticize this shit but what other good does it do?

Has anyone seen the latest issue? The first couple issues had a few annoying pics of architects. I can take my occasional self-promotional horse shit but the latest issue is the worst. Every article, commentary, ad, you name it, is accompanied by a full-page photo of an architect or architects. It has become the GQ of architecture magazines. The poses are terrible too. It is like the word “ASSHOLE” should be scrawled beneath each picture.
The flaw of the magazine is that it is all about focusing on the architects not the architecture. Who the fuck cares about what architects wear or how they look or whether they are a nerd or not? Your buildings and designs should be your connection to people, not your picture in GQ. We are all for celebrating the newest, cool design to be done by someone but lets allow the architecture ego to be enlarged through that and not through you looking cool in a black suit. Besides, there are no hot chicks doing cool architecture so who would want to look at the photos. Could you imagine the next issue: Zaha Hahaha naked in a hot tub except for a couple of artistically placed bubbles? That’s the crescendo that magazine seems to be building towards and it’s just wrong.
Maybe this is the point of the magazine and why it is called "Architect" and not "Architecture - something". If so, then we think this point is all wrong. It not only exacerbates the problem we have with the image of the architect as the all-knowing savior but it simultaneously pushes the point that image is more important than anything else when it comes to architecture. Personally, we not only find this inaccurate but a disservice to what we do as a profession.

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Why do we do such crappy buildings?

Most of the buildings we design are condominiums. It’s not a romantic job but someone has to do it. One question we often ask ourselves is, “why can’t we make nicer buildings”. The easy blame gets spread between the head designer and the owner but this doesn’t really tell the entire story.

First it’s important to clarify; I don’t think any of us feels particularly guilty about our work. We aren’t killing kittens or doing anything as unseemly as that. We are making a minor contribution to the world: people need a place to live. We are fulfilling a need. It’s not great that they seem to love living in little cubicles in the sky but what can we do about that? Also, our buildings don’t completely suck. They have a little detail, are typically not un-pleasant to walk by and they sure as hell aren't the worse things on the street.
One of the problems is that work is somewhat mundane. How many cubicles in the sky can you really design while keeping it interesting? Some architects get more excited if those cubicles in the sky are glass and steel instead of brick and wood but I am not sure there is that great a distinction between the two. Others are excited if you just change the shape of the cubicle – boy, if only that apartment were round or obtuse – now that would be more fun to design. Please…

I am not sure that the product is the problem. Part of the problem with designing these things is that we are only concerned with what sells. Granite counters, body sprays and rain cans, that perfect “sweet spot” of square footage. Oh, and it has to have a little outdoor space – even if that space is a 25 square foot checker-plate deck facing an garbage-filled alley, it has to have it. These are all that really matters in the condo world. And why is this so? It is easiest to blame the lemmings that seem to be lining the streets to buy this stuff. Or is it the developers who believe that this is all people want so this is what they are going to serve them. Perhaps it’s a combination of the two.
Another line of thought is that architects are to blame for this entire dilemma. Since we are the harbingers of architectural culture, it is our job to educate the public about quality space and design. If this were the case, wouldn’t we have spent more time learning how to teach and communicate then how to draw and design?

Ultimately, cheaper and bigger end up being the goal and in order to make the client happy (so we can get paid and commissioned to designed more “bigger and cheaper” cubicles) we do whatever it takes. Cheaper and bigger is what the client wants and it is what the client sells to the consumers – which is, in this city, most of us. What a screwed up circle.

One of the ladies formerly in our office informed us that Oprah had a show on “living small” (as if this would eventually change the world). The show featured one guy that lives in 94 square feet of space. This guy is obviously not married and he certainly doesn’t rake in the kind of dough that Oprah does. Does Nate Berkus live in 94 sq feet? Shit, I don’t think Oprah can confine herself to 9400 square feet (and I am not making a crack about her body here)!
Who knows, maybe Oprah is the answer. Perhaps she can begin to assist architects in the education of the general public about quality space through her show!!! Then again, I am not sure I could stomach a talk show filled with architects. HGTV and the DIY network are bad enough. Perhaps if we can convince Oprah what quality design is and that quantity is not everything, I am sure we are well on our way to not designing crappy buildings anymore.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Dear Annie Choi

Dear Annie Choi,

Good riddance. We haven’t been so keen on you hanging around us like an archi-hag anyway. It's too bad though, we will truly miss all of those “deep” interjections you have about turkey eggs and tacos.

We are sorry that you have not been able to use us for something self-gratifying like you do the rest of your so-called friends. Sorry we seem to have nothing to offer you but we do take offense at the suggestion that we are not good to hang out with at a bars. Frankly, we believe we are some of the most jovial drinkers out there. We are also typically quite generous with buying rounds as we hate to drink alone. Perhaps you didn’t catch a round because you were too busy ogling the doctors and lawyers at the tables next to us. Or maybe we were downing our drinks so fast that you missed a round or two.

We also don’t get the whole 11:00 at night dinner thing. We are sure that there are some in our profession that love to work more than anything else in the world and unless we have been out drinking and skipped a regular dinner hour, we typically dine right after work. It is unfortunate that those are the only architects you hang out with. We believe that if you started slumming it and hung out with some of us from the 2nd and 3rd tier architecture firms (not the SOMs, KPFs, or any of those snobby arty firms) you would quickly find that many of us realize there is much more to life than architecture. We typically show this by drinking profusely; religiously attending every nearby happy hour.

Don’t think for a moment though, that while slumming with us lesser architects you will escape discussions of architecture. We still over-indulge in ourselves and in our work and why shouldn’t we? We are the most brilliant and most important people we know. We are responsible for some really cool shit. We just don’t work as hard as our big-wig counterparts. Stressing over stuff like what angle to tilt our curtain walls or what type of zinc-coated panels to use on our buildings is really not high on our list of priorities.

Again, we are not so sad you are giving up on us. It's just too bad you have such a bad impression. If you stuck around long enough you might eventually see us slip into some meaningful conversations about space elevators, Adam & Eve, or Jessic Biel’s acting career.

Yours truly,

Architects Suffering a Life Without Andy

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Top ten clues that you may not be environmentally friendly:

10. You shoot anything that moves in your back yard out of fear that it might carry disease.
9. You have covered every inch of your yard with landscape fabric to prevent weeds.
8. You put all your “empties” neatly back into the case but still can’t find the energy to recycle.
7. You own a battery-operated Roundup gun.
6. You choose to drive to work even though it takes longer than public transportation. 5. You are frightened by compost.
4. You bring a television with you... ...camping.
3. Your idea of watering the lawn is leaving the sprinkler on until puddles form on the sidewalks.2. You are convinced that compact flourescent bulbs are part of a communist conspiracy.
1. You believe it when the president says that scientists are unsure about global warming.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

A New List

So here it is. After long hours of debating, we have come up with a system to revise the Maxim list. Each of us was given the top ten women and were allowed to subtract as many women and re-arrange them in whatever order we wanted. We then add a new woman to the list to create a new top ten. Since some of us at LWoA know nothing about following directions, a few of the lists break that mold. In that event, any women beyond 1 that was added is deleted in the final tally. An asterisk follows that woman's name. Note that some of us had a hard time making a top ten out of their top ten.

Architect #1:
1. Jessica Alba
2. Adrianna Linn
3. Kristen Kreuk
4. Jessica Biel
5. Lucy Liu*
6. Scarlett Johansson
7. Eva Langoria
8. Christina Aguillera
9. Ali Larter
10. Eva Mendes

Architect #2
1. Adriana Lima
2. Jessica Alba
3. Jessica Simpson
4. Jessica Biel
5. Scarlett Johansson
6. Christina Aguillera
7. Alissa milano*
8. Angelina Jolie*
9. Eva Langoria
10. Cindy Crawford*

Architect #3
1. Scarlett Johansson
2. Jessica Biel
3. Ali Larter
4. Sarah Carter
5. Scarlett Chervat*

Architect #4
1. Jessica Biel
2. Sarah Lancaster
3. Scarlett Johansson
4. Eva Mendes

Architect #5
1. Natalie Portman
2. Jessica Beil
3. Scarlet Johansen
4. Chick from Rome*
5. Clare Danes*

Architect #6
1. Jessica Biel
2. Kiera Knightly
3. Scarlett Johansson
4. Ali Larter
5. Jessica Alba
6. Eva Langoria
7. Eva Mendes
8. Christina Aguillera

After analyzing the voting with a highly sophisticated point system, the LWoA list of Maxim's hottest women is:
1. Jessica Biel
2. Jessica Alba
3. Scarlett Johansson
4. Ali Larter
5. Christina Aguillera
6. Eva Mendes
7. Eva Langoria
8. Natalie Portman
9. Adriana Lima
10. Sarah Lancaster

I guess in hindsight, Maxim's list is not as bad as we originally thought. When it comes down to it, many of the women ARE hot. Perhaps putting LL at the top just threw us for a loop.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Maxim is Dead Wrong

Warning: this article contains language that some might construe as offensive. If you are one of those people, do not continue reading and please click here: This site is for you

What are the editors over at Maxim thinking? How in the world can they think Jessica Alba, Christina Aguillera, and Lindsey Lohan better looking than Jessica Biel? I'll admit Scarlett Johansson is way hot - much hotter than the aforementioned train wrecks but hotter than Jessica Biel? How in the world did she not end up on the top of the list. That's a stretch. I am afraid that Maxim uses the "hot like a drugged out whore I just dumped in an alley" standard for their hottest women and I don't get it. I am not sure that Maxim is taking their important work seriously. Many men rely on Maxim for their fix of scantly clad women, to be kept up to date on the latest hot chicks, and a number of reasons that are better kept behind bathroom doors. In order to try and kick them into shape, here is a quick critique of their list. If I am way off base and guys actually think that LL is the hottest, then perhaps there is a greater sociological problem that just can't be addressed within the confines of this little blog.

Lohan is just plain spooky. I'd rather bang roadkill. And why the fuck are Mary Kate & Ashley on this list anywhere? Maybe this should be the "top women whose rib cage I'd love to rub my dick against" list. I can understand why people think Alba is hot but she looks too young and too skinny. Many of these women look like underage boys. I think it is creepy when a guy over the age of 18 say that these women are hot. Any guy over 30 that agrees has a problem and should be arrested. I agree, they have some hotties on the list but to put LL at the top is a bit frightening. At least fucking road kill would give you less of a chance of scraping against bone because you have maggots there to cushion you.

Let's look at the rest of the list. I don't watch "Heroes" but after checking IMDb, I have to confess that I think Ali Larter is pretty damn hot and should remain on the list. Fergie looks like a cross dresser or something scary. Have you ever seen that face up close? There is something very wrong there. I guess if you are into cross dressers with messed up faces, she is hot. In my book, she shouldn't make the list. Langoria is ok, but I would not say top 10. I don't even know who Rhianna is and given the way this list is going, I doubt she is worth googling. Mendes is pretty cute again not top 10 material. Aguillera has a great body and even better voice, but a little bit of a jacked up face, still O.K. though. I guess I can always cover part of the page with my thumb so I'll let it slide. Johansson is hot, but people give her too much credit as the hottest person out there. Alba used to be hot, but got too skinny. Too skinny = not hot.

This listing raises a few questions. First, who is the hottest woman? Second, how do you create a "better" list?

In answer to question 1: Jessica Biel is the hottest woman right now. Those that don't agree either don't like women or need their eyes checked. Her accomplishments as an actress can be debated (Is she a bad actress or has she just not been given the proper roles to prove herself?) but her stature as a magnificent specimen of pure feminine beauty can NOT be questioned. Her presence in one of worst movies of all time, Blade 3, almost makes that movie watchable and every man with a half an ounce of testosterone in their system has to admit that they snuck in an episode or two of 7th Heaven just to get their Jessica fix.As for how to create a better list, the folks at LWoA are working diligently on that. Since reading the news about Maxim's list, we have done very little except debate this critical issue. Stay tuned for poll results of the hottest women in the world as brought to you by LWoA.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Happy Whacking!

Choir: Oh Whacking Day!
Oh Whacking Day!
Our hallowed snake skull-cracking day!
Boy: We’ll break their backs
Gouge out their eyes
Their evil hearts we’ll pulverize!
Choir: Oh Whacking Day!
Oh Whacking Day!
May God bestow His grace on thee















Homer: Just squeeze your rage into a bitter little ball and release it at an approprate time. Like that day I hit the referee with a whiskey bottle. Remember that, when daddy hit the referee?











Lovejoy: (Reading from bible) And the Lord said, whack ye all the serpants which crawl on their bellies and thy town shall be a beacon unto others. (Long pause) So you see Lisa, even God himself endorses Wacking Day.
Lisa: Lemme see that.
Lovejoy: (Puts bible behind him) ...Mmmmmmm, no.


Bart: Ladies and gentlemen! Whacking Day is a sham! It was originally conceived in 1922 as an excuse to beat up on the Irish.
Old Irishman: 'Tis true. I took many a lump, but 'twas all in fun.

Friday, May 04, 2007

Where's the Bees!?!



If you have been paying attention to the news over the last week you may have heard about the current honeybee crisis. It seems bees are disappearing at an alarming rate and no one knows why. There are many theories out there as to the cause and potential solutions to this problem, if you do not yet know what the hell I am talking about you can learn more here,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18442426/ and here, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18442426/

As the diligent news hounds that we are over here at Lw/oA we have looked deep into this mystery and come up with what may be the truth behind this potential disaster. The disturbing truth is that the bees are not just dieing off as scientists have assumed, no the bees are being kidnapped and held against their will. Who would have he audacity and skill to pull of such a dangerous coup and why you may ask? The culprits in this dastardly scheme: NINJAS! Thats right, secret ninja societies are taking our bees. Why?



Well the reason involves a conflict that dates back centuries and continues to this day. The great Ninja-Pirate Wars are behind the whole thing. Ninjas and Pirates have been fighting for supremacy for centuries and the battles have heated up in recent times. Stealth and hand-to-hand combat skills have given the Ninjas an advantage for some time. In a comparison of the two it is clear why the nija was doing so well:

















PIRATES ------------------------NINJAS

Ruthless and brutalLack any personality
Wear eye patchesWear headbands
Fight with swordsFight skillfully with any object
Represented by a skull and bones Can remove a spleen in one swift motion
Obnoxious and stink horriblyLive in your house secretly for days
Have large shadows from being fatCan remove their shadow if needed
Launch cannonballsHurl shurikens
Ride in big wooden boatsGo anywhere they want instantly
Put daggers in their teethCatch bullets in their teeth
Say "Arrrrrrrrrrgghh"Kill themselves if they make a noise
Have names like SchmeeHave cool words like Sepulku
Can be smelled before seenAre masters of disguise
Drink all day long Flip out and kill everything
Make traitors walk a wooden plankSplit planks vertically with their nose
Kill people with black powder guns Kill people.

But the Pirates technological advances have countered this and they have felled many a ninja in battle. So the Ninjas have developed a new strategy to destroying the retched Pirate - NINJA BEES!


By capturing bees and training them to be ninjas the Ninja will have a great, unstoppable army at their disposal. After the failure of the ninja turtle experiment (never trust teenagers, even if they are turtles) the bees are the last great hope of the ninja. So as we worry about the loss of our precious honey bee we should be more concerned about the impending destruction that will be caused by the great final battle of the Ninja and the Pirate.






As hoards of bees descend upon the land to snuff out the stink ridden pirates of the world take cover and pray that Chuck Norris arrives to help you and hope that the battle does not commence on National Talk Like a Pirate Day for then we are all doomed.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Green Architecture

Unless you’ve been living under a rock somewhere, you would have heard of this term. It seems to be the hottest thing going. You can’t open an architectural journal or read a newspaper article about a new development without seeing the word “green”. Great idea, huh? Frankly, I am sick of it and am generally annoyed how people in the construction and development industries are using the word “green” to justify just about anything.

Real Example A: An architect designs a home in the middle of nowhere, touted for its "green" materials and for the way it “fits in” with the environment. The home is approximately 5,000 sf.

Real Example B: An architect renovates a Chicago Bungalow. The home is given credit because it employs new HVAC systems, windows, walls and insulation, making it energy efficient and protecting the home from any infiltration.

Real Example C: A popular food chain is credited with having a green roof because it will help protect us from warmer micro-climates.

I could go on with another 10 REAL examples that piss me off but frankly, my lunch hour is only so long. The point is: something very wrong and warped has come from a good idea. If we are going to call something "green", I have a few new rules that should apply:

1. New construction can not be considered green. There has been a tremendous amount of energy put forth to date to create buildings. To "throw away" that energy is wasteful. Yes, there are times when we must build new – but those times are rare and we should do it responsibly. Old buildings are a great resource and will save us from producing new: walls, foundations, roof structures, windows, etc. You want to be green? Buy an old home or building and treat it the way you would a national park - as a steward.

2. Any single-family home greater than 2500sf can not be considered green. Anything beyond this is a waste. It is a waste of energy to produce, waste of energy to maintain and condition, and is more likely to contain spaces with "wasteful" appliances and other shit. You want to be green, live modestly and stop buying shit!

3. Any building NOT within walking distance of a public transit line, grocery store, and school can not be considered green. One of the greatest wastes we have going on is the expenditure of fossil fuels moving people around. The further you need to move people, the more waste is going on. There are several rural areas where construction is necessary and there are plenty of great old rural homes and farm houses that could use a new steward. Beyond that, I just don't get it. If you like nature so much, then why the hell would you marring it with your personal modern architectural statement? Get over youself! Fallingwater was built in a different time and place. Hopefully we have learned a few things about architectural responsibility since then. You want to be green? Move to a fucking urban area and walk!

4. Substantial removal of original items from a home or building is not a green practice. Where does this stuff go? To the construction fairy? No, it likely goes to a dump. What replaces it? Likely, this stuff is replaced with industrially produced sub-standard plastic crap. You want to be green? Re-use, renovate and repair instead of replace.

5. Making a building weather-tight is not green. People go to great lengths to insulate, seal, and "protect". Instead of finding ways to "seal" and separate us from our environment, we should be finding innovative ways to live within it. Trapping air, moisture, etc. within the walls of where we live and work will likely cause mold, or worse, disease. You want to be green? Live with the occasional draft or God forbid, open a freaking window if you want to cool down - fresh air never killed anyone.

6. Having a green roof on a building within a sea of asphalt parking is not “green”. You want to be green? Reduce parking and make people walk. It will do them some good to get some exercise before they eat one of your 1000 calorie burgers anyway. With the additional open space, add some trees. You will do more with a few trees on your site than those few blade of grass will ever do on your roof.

As I understand it, a lot of these issues have been taken into consideration in LEED. The problem with LEED is that it doesn’t seam to account for the fact that when a code or recommendation is given, the average person acts like a 3 year old. They will find out how far they can push it until they get a smack on the ass.

If they are going to institute a merit system then they need to conversely administer a demerit system. O.k., you get a point for doing that condenser with a high SEER rating but moron, you built a single family home with a heated indoor swimming pool – bang! Minus 2 points! Great, you located your office building near a transit line, you get a point. But wakeup asshole, you tore done a perfectly fine concrete and brick warehouse building from the 1920’s to do so – bang! Minus 3 points! On the other hand, why do we need a system of merits anyway? Why can't people just be responsible.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

An answer to the $34,000 question

Did anyone see the latest issue of Architect? They had a great (sarcasm) article about interns and pay within the arch. profession. It is called, "The $34,000 question".

Apparently, the answer to the $34,000 question, "Do interns earn enough?" is a meek, "No, but that's OK because they are dedicated idealists who love the work." What an utterly disappointing and embarrassing glimpse at our profession. Why is the low pay inevitable and why isn't Architect magazine writing about what's being done, if anything, to change the situation? This article says nothing new and answers nothing about a problem all architects have seemingly resolved to accept.

A profession like ours should not be relying on idealism to attract and keep talent. Architecture is artistic and potentially altruistic but not nearly enough of either that idealism alone will keep talent. Who are we kidding? I don't know if other architects like the "starving and angst-ridden artist" image, but it is stupid and inaccurate. If architects say, "I'm not in it for the money, I love the work". Who are they saying this for? Is it to convince themselves they didn't screw up on career choices or to convince others that they have somehow attained a higher calling? When did architecture become monastic? This assumption about our profession degrades it.
The warm optimism and anecdotes in this article about the few firms that offer alternative benefits to good salaries felt like veiled chastisement to those with second thoughts. This insultingly implies that people who are tired of bad pay just don't care enough and should get out or stop complaining. Or maybe the author's intent was to be that of a cheerleader pushing us on through the tough fight that is our careers. Well, I agree it's time to stop complaining. The reality is that most buildings that are designed and built in America are not works of art but works of economy and devoid of transcendental meaning.

Many architects are leaving the profession without leaving, by taking corporate architect positions. These companies pay well above the average at every level of experience. Corporations are out for profit. An interesting take for this article, instead of the fatalistic idealism, would be to study how those companies justify paying higher salaries to their architects and what can be learned for the profession as a whole.
The quote from the architect principle regarding interns, "We can't pay them $100,000 / year because they are not worth it." is especially poignant. Interns are not worth it, architects are not worth it. Why is that? Why after 5-6 years of high priced higher education are interns coming into the profession unprepared and therefore of little value? The undervaluing of one member of our profession undervalues the entire profession. Why is one of the main questions on the AIA website for perspective clients, "Why hire an architect?" Shouldn't our value be obvious? The other members of the construction and real estate industry, with few exceptions, are in it solely for the money. Architects are not on some higher plane. Architects play an important role in building but with increasing control and responsibility ceded to other professions: engineers, contractors, developers, architects are expendable.
Maybe architects need to go out of business. If we can not show our value and gain the respect through proper payment, we shouldn't just complain about it, or take it meekly as artistic martyrs. We should act to take more of the industry profit share, train to deserve better compensation or eliminate the profession altogether.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

What color was the apple?

For those that think we are loser self-absorbed architects, we are not always consumed with things architectural. This morning, we were having a lively discussion about Adam Eve. It went something like this:

Pete: Marcus and I were just discussing the apple of knowledge from the bible Adam and eve story. Does the color of the apple matter to the story? was it even mentioned? Would the world be a different place if it had been a green apple? Eve might not have eaten it, no one likes green apples nearly as much as red ones....except probably Chris because he's got strange tastes in fruit.

Chris: I do think the color matters - size too. It wasn't some small crab apple -it was definitely big and round but they never really mention that, do they?There is a shit-load of reading between the lines in the bible.

John: I don't think they even say it was an apple in the bible. I thought that was more a school/social thing that everyone says apple because its a concrete item that kids can understand. The bible just says it was a fruit. Maybe I am wrong about that and I don't have a bible handy so I can not check, but that's what I remember. Do they even grow a lot of apples in the Iran/Turkey area that this was written in?

Pete: serious reading between the lines...how do they even know it was an apple? it seems like a banana makes more literary sense, it's phallic. (Chris likes cold black bananas, coincidence?) after eating it she's all about the dick, so a banana makes more sense.

After looking at the bible on this cool website, we realize that there is no apple mentioned: http://www.biblegateway.com/

John: I am going with it being a lemon. Lemons were probably the sweetest fruit in the universe and then god, in his standard old school spiteful rage, turned it into a sour fruit that most people do not like to just bite into and eat. However, the pear argument seems logical also.

Chris: I still like the idea of a sardine tree - the magical sardine that brings knowledge to all!!!

Pete: How does a sardine tree make any sense? Most people hate sardines. Plus they are fish and don't grow on trees. But if we are suspending disbelief and the garden of Eden really did have everything growing from trees, well a sardine tree would be great for a Finnish Adam and Eve or Sven and Svetlana.

Marcus: A sardine tree is possible.

This whole examination of ambiguity brings up another interesting question: Were there dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden?

We're told that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh and that Adam and Eve kicked it around Eden for a bit, living in trees I guess. But we also know that no one, especially Presidents, should take the Bible literally and that its all metaphors and the six days could actually be six billion years or however long it took for bacteria to become hairless apes. And that there wasn't a specific "Adam" and "Eve" (and most certainly not an "Adam" and "Steve" as said President would like to remind us).

But it's also fun to imagine Adam racing around Eden on the back of his pet raptor "Buttercup" while Eve roamed the fields on her unicorn "Princess." And if they DID live with dinosaurs, did the dinosaurs get along with their human companions or did the T-Rex keep eating the Adam to the point God got so pissed off he killed all the dinosaurs off so that man could live, only to have Man (or, rather, Woman) go and fuck things up for everybody?

Chris: I got in trouble in grade school (I think I was in 3rd grade) for drawing dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden. If the Polish nuns at Sacred Heart say there were no dinosaurs in the garden of Eden, I would tend to believe them. What was great is they told me I need to choose what I believe in: I either believed in dinosaurs or the bible (there was no gray area with those ladies).

Maybe it does need to be a fruit or vegetable though. I like the image of Adam or Eve just being able to bite into the fruit - the experience needs to be direct. If you have to take the time to peel it, you might have second thoughts about actually eating it. In this case, a lemon or orange, lime, or tangerine wouldn't work. It needs to be an apple, grape, pear, tomato or something you don't peel.

John: obviously the stupid t-rex ate from the magic sardine tree and thus our lord and savior the Big Guy did strike down the dinosaurs. he told adam, eve and steve about this as a warning not to eat the sardines or black bananas, but god, being a woman, kept going on and on about the tree and of course the guys did not listen because they were distracted by eve's sexy, naked body. except for steve who was distracted by adam (but we will not discuss that). Eve knew all about the warning but became jealous of god as adam started staring at her instead of eve. So out of spite (damn women) she ate the sardine and convinced adam to do the same (who can resist a naked, hot eve?). The unicorn/zebra was destroyed and adam and eve were given the boot.

Marcus: Tina Fey had a great joke on SNL about dinosaurs and Jesus during the 2004 Presidential Campaign:

"A Supreme Court in Georgia ruled that high school biology teachers were permitted to continue using the term 'evolution' when teaching their classes. However as a compromise, they must now refer to dinosaurs as 'jesus horses'."

Pete: I like the concept of Jesus Horses.

What do Polish nuns have against evolution? The Catholic Church pretty much supported evolution, I thought. Pretty sly move on their part.

Where they completely naked in the garden? Does it really say that? I think they would wear something on their feet, sandals or socks. It's still a garden and no one likes stepping on crap.

John: your point about pealing is well taken and I like the tomato as a good option. it could explain why it was ostracized from the fruit world and treated like a lowly vegetable. Or taken the opposite way, it is the most magnificent of the fruits and vegetables because it functions as both.

So that's how it was. We accomplished at least one thing today. We figured out what the fruit on the tree in the Garden of Eden was - all before lunch.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

What's in a website?

What makes a good architect’s website? This seems to be the big question on everyone’s mind around the office these days. We are on the verge of introducing the new website so everyone is on pins and needles.

For lack of any originality, we’ve started a top 5 list of things that make a good architecture firm website. In order to illustrate the point, we’ll pick on a few architecture sites from Chicago’s top designers. Since architect's have no sense of humor, I am sure this won't go over well with most of these folks. Anyway, hope you enjoy it.

1. Since this is one vehicle that introduces firms to potential employees, clients, and collaborators, it needs to communicate what your firm is all about.

These guys are not subtle at all but at least you get the point:
http://www.architectureisfun.com/

Conversely, would you trust these guys with your building design?
http://www.prosidesign.com/

2. Since people mentioned in number 1. typically come to websites to find info, it should be easy to navigate. A lot of architects screw this one up big time.

I dare you to find (or catch) anything on this site:
http://www.jrarch.com/

Conversely, this is a little boring (see #4) but at least you can't get lost:
http://www.wkarch.com/project_home.htm

3. It needs to have accurate info. Since people are looking for info, after they find it, it has to be correct and up to date. Nothing is more annoying than going onto a site that has employees listed that were fired years ago or building’s built in the last century. How tough can it be to update???

C'mon guys, it's 2007, there has to be some new news:
http://www.hedev.com/

You can't tell me the most current things these guys did was in 2005:
http://www.murphyjahn.com/english/frameset_intro.htm

4. It needs to get your attention – it has to be cool. No one wants to surf on a boring site so how you actually find things, how images and stuff scroll or fade is important. Be careful, there is a fine line between cool and annoying. Hint 1.: lots of Flash does not =cool. Hint 2.: If you have to add a "skip intro" button to your site, most likely people that visit the site will hit that button immediately - who wants to wade through your self-indulgent bull shit?

Pretty cool but almost pushing it a bit too far:
http://www.garofaloarchitects.com/home.html

Same idea as the above site (whose came first???) taken to the limit. Can this be more annoying?:
http://www.perkinswill.com/

Christ, can they jam more moving shit onto this thing:
http://www.wbarch.com/index2.html

Ouch, check out the scrolling. It looks like Hitler Architect took over Times Square:
http://www.buildordie.com/index2.htm

Make sure you have your seat belt on for this one:
http://www.nadelarc.com/

5. It has to be beautiful. This is different than being cool. Yeah, it sounds kind of corny and subjective but the site needs to be visually attractive. Let’s get serious, you are trying to impress people here – and most people that check out architect’s websites are other architects. That is setting the bar pretty high/ If you can’t create an attractive website, then what kind of shit are you actually making in terms of architecture?

I guess this is beautiful... ...if you like bumble bees:
http://www.oculusarchitecture.com/

Not bad - they truly need to update though a fellow SGWer is listed as an employee:
http://www.rossarchitecture.com/

Simplicity is sometimes best - I hope these guys finish this site some day:
http://jj-arch.com/

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Stuart in California

Stuart's "real" California job is finally revealed:

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Another (HOT) one bites the dust.

We are all absolutely devastated. Yes, it was rough when they laid off 4 people a couple weeks ago but today is really rough. It is Alison's last day. For those of you that didn't know it, we had the hottest architect in the world working at our firm. No, it was not Frank Gehry, it was Alison. She's so hot, she almost gives Jessica Biel a run for her money.

Upon getting hired, her bio was sent around the office. How can someone "into watersports" be boring? And she has looks to boot. With last weeks firings, (oops, I mean lay-offs) the male to female ratio has gone way off and losing Alison is just another nail in the coffin. Sexual innuendos took a nose dive after Stuart left. Now, I think they will be non-existent.

To give this woman some credit, she was also a hell of an architect. Though she was monopolized by everyone's favorite pen-chewing project manager, we are all sure she had to be doing something right. We all wish her well as she moves on to whiter pastures (in architecture, white is always better).

The "life without... " list is getting pretty long these days - almost a little too long. Let's hope that we have a little stability before the asteroid hits.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Hmmmm... ...Justin or David

Stuart’s move to LA has paid off. Unless you have been living in a box under a highway without a television or unless you don’t give a damn about soccer (or football as some people of questionable sexuality call it) you would know that Stuart’s idol, David Beckham, has signed with LA’s professional soccer time.

New questions are being raised even as I write:

Did Stuart know about this prior to moving to LA?

Will Posh be starring in her own reality show?

How will Stuart ever split his stalking time between Beckham and Timberlake?

Will Pete soon be joining Stuart in LA to stalk Posh?

Does anyone in America give a damn about this news?