message_275620

Topic for Debate
 
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars

Architecture is developed to be as Hollywood where architectural knowledge has shifted its focus from knowledge to fashion production where famous architects getting stars position. If you miss their names you will not be considered as an updated architect. Why and Who is responsible for this? How we can correct this problem?
Hoshiar Nooraddin
Responses
 
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Hoshiar, An interesting topic. As far as I can see today`s `coffee table` glossy magazines are responsible for promoting architecture as fashion.

And these magazines bring to mind two sayings: From Aeosop`s Fables "Empty vessels make the most sound." and (b) The Middle Eastern saying "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

How to correct this problem? would mean removing the flashmob juggernaut of modern art and literature criticism from architecture and returning to the principles of design and aesthetics.
Frank John Snelling
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Thanks Frank. I think there are several sources and forces behind Architectural Hollyoodism. Among them are dominating the money in real estate market where investors are guiding the architecture in a way to make big money in short time . This money based architecture is dominating the education and practice. To change this will realy need a revolution to change our architectural education and practice methods including architectural media
Hoshiar Nooraddin
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Hoshiar, Yes, I agree, to quote the name of a book "Small is beautiful" and this not only applies to design but to building budgets as well.
Frank John Snelling
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
One additional reasons behind this phenomenon is power show where architecture is used as a tool to show dominance and power where particular architects are willing to realize it
Hoshiar Nooraddin
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Can we correct a trend?
Will the trend change?

Through out history, we have "trendy" architects... The worst thing about trend is that acting untrendy is also part of the trend... because trend evolves and takes its roots on society, mass volition and intention.

Architecture for Humanity, a "non-trendy" movement promoting "Humanitarian Architects" is in fact part of the trend and its mentor Cameron is a star...

Leopard cannot change its spots , humans need models and heroes... Architectures at all time were and are highly used as society/civilization POWER demonstration...Therefore Builders are the artisans writing within the landscape the supremacy of the ruling power (whatever it is).

We did not evolve much since the grotto time...


Maybe the solution would be to reintroduce the Egyptian rule: any builder (architect/engineer) have to be buried in the pyramid with the Pharaon...

Can you imagine!!!! Well no one will enrole for studies.


Honestly, most engage themselves into architectural studies and practices looking forward to make a difference and to come out of the mass... We all want to become a Hollywood star!


I believe the issue is elsewhere: Reward and recognition of real quality study and work.
Most of current "stars" have lost their "conceptual" strength.

Like Rem Khoolass, the agency production has no longer the quality and strength of its original approach.
"Deconstructivism" has become a trademark as a sale slogan. The Interlace project in Singapore is a total aberration...

Are we killing the sense of Architecture?
Louisette Rasoloniaina
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Louisette, very nice ideas. Actually we all around the World are suffering from the phenomenon of architectural Hollyoodism that has dominated our thinking and practice of architecture. The result today is that we suffer problems of identity. What is the different between modern identity of Chinghai, Dubai and New York. The last economic crisis has provided us with a short pause to evaluate the architectural Hollywoodism that dominated architectural practice and which consequence it ended with
Hoshiar Nooraddin
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Dear Hoshiaro, you are always revolutionist! I think this is normal and you find stars everywhere, in art, sport, literature, etc. I agree that there might be some other factors, but in many cases it's their work, philosophies and theories that make them stars. In addition, developments in media and communications increased the number of stars. Now, to consider someone as star, it's our decision, but we can not prevent others to continue considering him/her as star. No one can stop this phenomenon, and nothing can hide stars except clouds and sunlight, temporarily.
When you talk about architectural knowledge, knowing such stars and their work and theories is also part of this knowledge. When you teach about sustainability (for example) and you don't come across some important examples by some well-known (star) architects, then there is something missing.
No one can claim that he knows all architects, but, if someone tells me about an contemporary architect that I don't know, it does not mean that he is not star or not well-known, he might be, but the truth that I should realize is that I might not be well updated.
Jihad Awad
Jihad Awad
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Dear Jihad, The problem is not having stars but not having the clouds in our architectural knowledge. There is a big problem in our present architectural critical thinking that is largely dominated by the market forces. The market itself is influenced by several forces where the influence level of each force can change for many reasons or any factor. For example, when architects became tools to realize the real estate market and the market apply their design products to maximize the profit as a main target that is the problem. Because the resulted architectural knowledge and practice has nothing to do with the real need of the society. There are endless of examples around the world where star architects designed projects only to meet desires of limited investors or decision makers. Which kind of knowledge is this when it has nothing to do with the general knowledge. Who can hide stars? even clouds cannot do that but our planet needs the clouds more than the stars because they give us true pure life source that sustains our life on this planet now and in future. It is this cloud that we need in architecture.
Hoshiar Nooraddin
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
hoshiar,

whether we like it or not, its a matter of fact : architecture is commercialized.no need for correction. i doubt the “good old days” had been better, they had been different. the location we work does not have any meaning any more (check rem’s lecture at aub in beirut), we can send our work in seconds from germany to vietnam, from alaska to africa and vice versa. we are living in a globalized world, the power is with the economy, led by the financial sector. politics react, but can not act any more. the profession of the architect changed dramatically, they are commissioned by multi-national global players, sometimes not even had ever been to the site. the job of an architect shifted from the public sector to the private sector. the question is not missing identity, the question is more about the new identification. less with a place, but more with the sustainability of an event. and this is legitimate.

we don’t have to discuss anymore the central term of the 20th century, the “functionalism of the modernity”. we have to be ready to create a 4th or 5th modernity, an urban and architectural planing which adopts the local conditions in their relation to globalization and to create a city - and within architecture - in constant change.

the new cities and their architecture, partly created by “star-architects” (the term star related to architecture is a result of this, commercial, development ) maybe will be outdated after a couple of years. i will go further as you do : these artificial cities are not necessary, nobody needs them. but they are there, and we enjoy their situation. its our job as architects not to try to influence social, political or whatever developments (and we are to small for this), its about the interpretation of these developments and how architecture, not architects, reacts to these circumstances.

michael schwarz
Michael Schwarz
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Michael, Architecture can promote change and growth and we are not small for this. It is just that architecture is being dominated by other fields and that handicaps our role. The other force behind limiting architecture’s role is architecture itself. Our architectural schools have one major target which is creating designers. We may need change this if we really want give architecture and architects larger role than the present Hollywoodism’s principles. We need our architecture schools to educate new additional innovative specializations such as architectural economy, architectural policy, architectural psychology, architectural Journalism and so forth. Such shift will give architects much larger work landscape to bring architectural influence into other fields in a way that considers larger factors and forces in any change event.
Hoshiar Nooraddin
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
hoshiar,
i agree in general in what you say. we have to face the new challenges of the architects job. economical, social (i call it ethics), outreach work (you call it journalism) psychology (i call it interaction) and so on. but at the end we design buildings. this is what architects stand for and its their last field of specialization. all the others will do the other things much better then us, cause they are specialized in these fields. the challenge will be to educate students not inviting engineers only to the drawing board. specialists of the fields mentioned above have to be involved in the design-process from the very beginning as well, to cover the complexity of nowadays architectural interventions. studios can buy or hire them. architects have, with a basic knowledge they learned in their studies, to coordinate all of these fields. students have to internalize the complexity of a successful project. offices (the stars, but others as well) have these specialists meanwhile involved in their studios. they have realized the “signs of the time”.

furthermore i agree in what jihad is saying, that especially educators have to be updated well on whats going on, even, or especially, with the “stars”. the stars do not only have a well working pr-department, they have a very deep knowledge on architecture and its fields surrounding. for me there is nothing wrong with “stars” i am sure, everyone would, somehow and for whatever reason, like to be one.
Michael Schwarz
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Michael, Any scientific field has its key people who contribute to building the fields knowledge and its improvements. Knowledge improvements and findings are done through real researches that show its benefit through practice. This fact includes architecture too. Architecture is criticized by other disciplines for not being a scientific field because our knowledge dose not develop or apply through scientific process. Architecture is the less productive field in producing researches. Majority of the so called star architects apply architecture based on individual design solutions without having relation to any reason rather than innovative forms. This is my objection. Because this individuality is very selfish method and has nothing to do with any established method for research or applied research. We do research and what we produce after 5 or 10 years of research will often left as a reference document or in best cases printed as nice book for reading. They seldom be used further to develop architectural solutions. Continuing the present architectural hollywoodism will only damage the society and architecture itself.
Hoshiar Nooraddin
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Dear Hoshiar,

You proposed an astute and timely subject. I think the solution to the problem you posed is available and I will try to contribute with some thoughts in this regards.

The Emperors New Clothes

I think the work of the star architects or "starchitects", like every thing in life, some of it successful and some of it is not so successful. The problem as you mentioned is the lack of "critical thinking" culture in our profession as starchitects attain a status of "near profits". I think Christopher Alexander was right when he argued that the state of architecture in the recent decades has a lot in common with the story of the "Emperors New Clothes". The king stands naked before his people because he has been tricked by his tailors, but only a child dares to call out the "truth". Who want to be that child? And as you put it " If you miss their names you will not be considered as an updated architect".

The Breakdown of the Triple-A Process

This culture of starchitect started with the rise of the modern movement, which broke down the long history of process of progression of architectural designs. A process I call it the triple-A process: functionally, and culturally successful designs are Adopted, Adapted and Advanced. The modern movement elevates the architect to the position of an "artist" who generates new architecture, driven on his own resources, with emphases on intuition and individuality. Of course, at the time there were economic and political reasons for the rise of the modern movement, however, this model of architectural practice, on the whole, is still applied and dogmatically taught (to various degrees) in most architectural schools. For architects, the fundamental model of practice is still that of the Modern Movement: Any question relating to the built environment, a design of a door handle or a city, is mostly an artistic project and a challenge to the imagination.

The European Experience

The modern movement started in Europe and flourished in the post-war era of the huge reconstruction projects. These project were very similar to what is being built in the Middle East and other developing countries. These projects failed to answer users social and cultural needs and many of these were demolished or still considered as a problem and an "eye-sore" in the city.

The European Answer

The European answer to this problem is not to change architects or architecture, but to cap or put a ceiling on architecture and the architect role in the built environment by introducing a new profession called "Urban Design"! It started as a movement during the late 1970s because of the dissatisfaction with the built environment generated during the post-war era. Now urban design in Europe become the controller and driving force in shaping the urban environment through tools of regulation and design guidance produced by local and national governments, and architects have to work within their limits. Urban design regulations are increasingly enforcing controls on design aspects such as urban layout, density, mix of use, and the envelop and visual impact of buildings. This is the reason why one does not see many iconic "eye-sores" built in Europe these years, but many "good" urban-sensitive projects. It took Norman Foster about 10 years to obtain a license to built the "Swiss Re" tower in the City of London, and Londoners intensely dislike it (google reactions to it!) .

So We have an Answer to the Problem

The answer to the problem is not to change architecture and architect now; this will take time for such fundamental change of attitude, as most teachers, senior architects and decision makers in architecture are entrenched in the Modern Movement Dogma. The answer as in the case of Europe is by "good" urban design regulation and guidance, these urban design regulation and guidance are based on social and cultural studies to substitute for the triple-A process mentioned above.

As you know, at Ajman University of Science and Technology, we started a master program design particularly for this purpose. The program includes a group of courses aimed at producing professional urban designers that have the knowledge of the social and cultural aspect of the built environment (in addition to other aspects such as the sustainability and the economics of the built environment) and capable of producing the necessary regulation and design guidance.
Faisal Hamid
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Faisal, very good response. But I would ask: Is it possible to achieve the required change through a temporary model where urban design regulations can be the key tool? I personally doubt this can be done properly because that is related to the decision making tradition in the particular country. Large number of countries around the world have not liberal decision making models and in many countries corruption is a normal norm. In these countries you can find official urban design regulations that justify terrible inhuman living conditions. In Other countries will definitely accept violating existing regulations for very small amount of money. Some times contacts and friendship can be a way to forget applying principle official regulations. Some time I wonder are those people totally blind for not considering their own and their next generations life interest when they behave like this. But this problem is larger than we can deal with therefore, what I suggested is to educate new types of architects who can contribute to the change using our own architectural soul and mind. I hope the Master Program at Architecture Department of Ajman University will be an innovative model and can deal with this issue.
Hoshiar Nooraddin
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Hoshiar, I totally agree with Faisal. I am one of those who see the emperor as he is, but how many would listen or see the reality under the flashing lights and the beating drums of the business world and media?! You cannot say let's not have stars when business calls otherwise. You will always have stardom and there is no harm in that as long as your choice of stardom is based on proper “standards and criteria”. Architects have to define these and not business and media. Does the professional ethics come into this?
Fahar Hayati
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
hoshiar, faisal, i like this discussion, even i don’t like forums. but, allow me a last post (pls. don’t force me to do another one :-)) and a last question :“ what do you want ?” (i really do not understand).

lets take germany. it was demolished at the end of ww 2. berlin, dresden, hamburg, cologne, Wesel (97% of the city demolished), Ulm (81%), Wuerzburg (90 %),Paderborn (85 %), Pforzheim (83 %), Magdeburg (90 %)etc., etc. millions of people had no food, no roof, no work, no nothing. this problem had to be solved. it was not a question of cultural needs, it was a question of surviving. to compare it with the development in the middle east is really inappropriate. europe at that time was a “demand-market”, the middle east is a “supply market”.

even in the answer i can not agree. calling the public sector if anything goes wrong is not the solution. this time is over. let me add a quote from... ( a star architect, guess who...) :
"People can inhabit anything. And they can be miserable in anything and ecstatic in anything. More and more I think that architecture has nothing to do with it. Of course, that's both liberating and alarming. But the generic city, the general urban condition, is happening everywhere, and just the fact that it occurs in such enormous quantities must mean that it's habitable. Architecture can't do anything that the culture doesn't. We all complain that we are confronted by urban environments that are completely similar. We say we want to create beauty, identity, quality, singularity. And yet, maybe in truth these cities that we have are desired. Maybe their very characterlessness provides the best context for living." (end of quote).

the modern movement (which started before ww 2) touched its borders for the reason it was not able to represent the power and the ideology of the state. the state reacted by giving rules, laws and regulations. the “huge reconstruction projects” got a bad attitude in the clean and nice city. for that reason the governments decided to demolish or just forget them. it was/is a place for people without a lobby. for that reason the call for public controlling is for me a kind of “declaration of bankruptcy” towards the challenges cities and architecture are facing in the 21st century. should we call again “westerners” (i know i am one myself) to solve the problems with their neo-colonialist approach ( i am not just talking about dubai) ? i am so tired of hearing from these people that architects in the uae should learn from i.e. berlin, its grids, its similar heights of eaves, its grid of facades etc. they forget, that architects in berlin build in an existing spatial environment, doing infill housing-architecture into an existing structure. in the uae we have to start to create cities, which did not exist 20 years ago as we see them today (berlin is 800 years old), and the tools we used in europe will not work in the emirates or in these kind of - mostly asian - cities.

don’t let’s make the mistake to keep students “safe” from these new kind of thinking. maybe otherwise they will then also be “safe” of getting a job.

sorry for being a bit pragmatic.
Michael Schwarz
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Hoshiar, Mike, I also don't think I will have much time (after the end of this short holiday) for this interesting forum discussion. For now, I will try to post some images as I thing I need to explain some aspect of my earlier post.

The first image I post is for a project in north England design by the British star of the modern movement James Stirling (1926-1992). The project called Southgate and built in the city of Runcorn in north England. It is a huge project built in the late 1960s and was demolished in 1992 before it realised it economic value. The project comprise of long low rise housing blocks. The design of the project is, using the "modern" architectural lexicon "have well balanced massing, innovative window design, structural expression, exciting materials, original, novel, new, daring and futurist". I suspect Stirling produce some "story" to justify the "symbolism" of the architecture, may be he argued: "The circular ship-like windows are a homage to Liverpool shipyard nearby, and the blue and yellow metal cladding is a reference to….." I do not know what; I am making it up!

The project is not the type of housing built for post-war "surviving", it is acclaimed Architecture (with capital A), it won architectural prizes at that time.

When I visited the project in 1984 few years before it was demolished; it was disliked and was half deserted. What is built in its place is "ordinary" housing with the prevailing "middle class" image of housing in England: Brick walls, bay-windows and pitched roofs!!!

Also see this video (link) for the story of the Southgate project. they change its name to Hollywood Park!!!!

http://www.pakistan.tv/videos-hallwood-park-[2PCNVjVfzvo].cfm
Faisal Hamid
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Dear friends,
No matter where the architectural cases are, the hollywoodism is a reality that needs further research and consideration by architects. This topic her is not to criticize cases or cities but how can we make architecture a better knowledge and better practice that can serve better society through reality and not hollywoodism. I leave this question to all my architectural colleagues and architecture schools in the world to think about and do whatever they can to find the answer.
Hoshiar Nooraddin
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Hoshiar, I agree with you that the question here is "how can we make architecture a better knowledge and better practice that can serve better society through reality and not hollywoodism" as you put it in your last post.

But there are many people struggled with this issue for a long time and they come up with answers which are worth studying. To talk about architectural issues using only abstract language without images and examples can go some distance, but could create misunderstanding and soon one starts to feel the need for tangible example and images, and perhaps that is why ArchNet provide this image facility.

As I mentioned in my earlier post that the answer can be is by enforce controls over architectural design through "good" Urban Design could be the answer. This is not only a European phenomenon as might be understood. I include an example as how urban design can produce good architectural design of many buildings of a part of a city, although it involves many architects to design the individual buildings.

The project called (Melrose Arch) and it is a new urban centre for a suburb of Johannesburg, South Africa. The urban designers achieved a coherent built environment by setting the layout, buildings envelop, and rules for the mix of uses and the interface of building with streets. Then various buildings are designed by deferent architects. You may notice that architects express individuality in the architectural design, but within the limits of the urban design brief, and the result in my opinion is successful!!!

The project link:

http://www.mpidesign.com/pro-melrose.html

And if you like you can do a street walk through the project as Johannesburg now included in Google Maps (street view). Use the address (Melrose Boulevard, Johannesburg). Thanks again for this exiting discussion forum.
Faisal Hamid
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Hoshiar, allow me another comment in regards to your last post as you correctly put the question to "architecture schools in the world" to "think about and do whatever they can to find the answer".

A number of architectural schools around the word have the same feeling as you and I feel about the need for, perhaps a "reform", in architectural education. And some architectural schools did reform their education curriculum, particularly in the USA. I have been following this topic for a number of years and like to give some background to the experiments to reform architectural education in the USA.

It is all started with the rise of the "New Urbanism" movement in America in the late 1990s. The movement advocate the return to more "humane" built environment in its scale, walkable streets, public spaces with sense of identity, and architecture based on what the majority feel that they relate to. The movement have a congress and chapters all over the USA and beyond, and organize a number of annual conferences. There principles are set in there manifesto or charter in this link: http://www.cnu.org/charter

The image above is for a project designed by two of the founders of new urbanism: Andres Duany & Elisabeth Plater-Zybek. It is also architecture controlled by urban design as in the case of the Johannesburg project I posted earlier. See their work link: http://www.dpz.com/projects.aspx

Also must point out that some pockets in new Dubai projects influenced "partially" by the American new urbanism ideas, such as Murdef Uptown.

New urbanism advocate the reform of architectural education. Miami School of Architecture, among few other American architectural schools, reform their program using the principles advocated by the new urbanism. To read about it you can start with their philosophy on link: http://arc.miami.edu/the-school/philosophy

Furthermore, in the regard to create a culture of critical thinking, there is increase emphases on the subject "evidence based architectural design" as an approach for achieving good design. It started in hospital and school design, and moving to housing and other building type: Google it.


Finally I think there will always be a need for exceptional architects to design those singular and unique buildings as landmarks or icons in the city such as: National theater, museum, parliament or town hall. But not every building tries to become an icon, or to teach architecture student to think like a "starchitect", first they must learn to design "good" buildings.

Over and out....
Faisal Hamid
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
I assume the "Swiss Re" in London looks like a rigid frame airship stuck end on in the ground and yes it just looks like a rigid frame airship stuck end on in the ground. Yawn.

Note: The classification of airships was A:Rigid and B:Limp which is where the english language gets the word "blimp".

I enjoy reading the posts in this topic, my best regards to all of you.
Frank John Snelling
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Hollywood (Magic Wood) is an industry to channelise trends,Desires,Power money,Mind and ultimately the Built Envoirnment.....and Architecture is the major tool for it.....Architects are on target.....We have the fingers to either support hollywood like Power Architecture for all great emporers or realise the Power of Architecture and become the Rulers by ourselves.......The choice is ours and its a challange!!!!!
Mansoor Ahmad
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Dear all,

2012, already! And the same topic came back into my memory...

Well have you ever though one minute about the death of Architecture as a consultancy firm under the name of a Starchitect?

Who are the big names nowdays?

Majors are now Atkins and so on... Where are the Hollywood star, which we could named by their sole personal name? At least less and less in the landscape...

If you take the example of Jean Nouvel, he is no longer working. The company JNA is a brand name, managed by financial team, shareholders and a pool of unknown designers.

The real design actors are unknown, invisible. The society and the world have changed and we are still talking, thinking of a certain scale of business while the reality is already on the MEGA GIGA not architectural structures but BUILDERS structures which comprehend multiple discipline: Engineering, Architecture, Environment Design,...

I believe the stardom has already changed in scale and in focus.

Hoshiar, I believe your topic is a great opening for a deeper and up-to-date professional questioning.

The traditional practice with its challenges, with its past social function is dying.


Who even cares about conception and revolution... when everything is solely turned to into market slogan for better sales only...

Group interests.

Even clients are no longer looking for avant-garde or quality, their projects are turned to political marketing slogan, just for the election campain show...

Can we name it the BOLLYWOOD SYNDROME : in the sense that all the glossy aspects are covered but out of the shell and layers of bright colour, the core is void; and targeting solely superlative qualities (the biggest, the tallest, etc...).

Reviewing the society state, outcomes and shortfalls might give us clue on the future of Architecture.
Louisette Rasoloniaina
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
Dear Louisette,
It is nice to see this topic her again!!
I think we are living an era of change that will have its consequence on architecture education and practice. Hollwodysm or Bollywoodism are two titles for similar phenomena although the quality might differ between them. Both methods dominate our living environment and manipulate our life to serve other forces than what we really need and want. I dont think there will be any change without having schools of architecture who are willing to adopt new education tradition that can deal with this issue in better way in order to correct the existing thinking and practicing traditions.
Hoshiar Nooraddin
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
"Hollywoodism" or the "Emperor`s New Clothes" are typical of the notion that there is a need for super-star fashionista pseudo-architectural designers to match the global audience of the whole of humanity. This is of course nonsense, because there is no such thing as `universal human taste` although 100 years ago the then Avante Garde advocates of the "Internationale Style" did try to push this idea which is both anti-cultural and Western Neo-Colonialist in agenda.

And, given that massive concrete works was the basis for the "Internationale Style", then the Avante Garde were really only salesmen for concrete manufacturers.

Today, we have a similar phenomema emerging with the glitzy razza-ma-tazz of world wide super-designers who suprise, suprise, are only able to design fashionable advertisements for the latest High-Tech gizmos.

This is truely ironic, because such High-Tech Trinkets are "ornamental" and as such should offend against the dinosaur Avante Garde Internationale Style diktak of "Ornament is crime".

Someone once said "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Frank John Snelling
Architecture is not Hollywood and Architects are not Hollywood stars
es i agree with the above
Nithish Monson
Search

Thumbnails
View

This site is adjusted only for landscape mode. Please rotate your device for properly using Archnet.org
We are sorry, we are still working on adjusting Archnet.org for Metro IE. Please use another browser for the best experience with our site.