Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Efficiency Vs. Pleasentry

Slide 14Answer 3 of 5 questions in the comments of the blog
  1. What do you think of LeCorbusier’s vision?
  2. Is it right to destroy historic buildings to build more efficient housing?
  3. What is more important in housing: efficiency or beauty?
  4. Would you want to live in a machine?
  5. What is the importance of street life?
  6. Should cars, people, residences, and businesses all mix?

17 comments:

ElMasLoko said...

Dominique Garces..
1.He had a good vision of change
2.I would say not but if it is to benefit the people in a good way the yes.
3.Efficiency because it has to be accomodating tyhepeople living in there. the house could be the most most beautiful of all and not fit the family's needs.
4.I already live in a machine.A house is a machine because it is made by men and it contains inside more machinery.
5.The importance of street life is that u learn from your mistakes and later on you dont repeat them.
6.yes-

ashley.autherley said...

1. I think that LeCorbusier's vision was a very good idea because it created more housing for people, but it also created more violence in the projects.

2. it is a bad thing to destroy historic buildings but if people need a place to live then its the right thing to do.

3. I think efficiency is more important when it comes to housing people want a safe, clean place to live rather how it looks because a place can be nice looking but doesn't mean that it is safe to live in.

4. No i wouldn't want to live in a machine. I don't want my house just giving me what I need but I want it to be a place that enjoy, that I look forward to coming home to, not to use and leave it.

By: Ashley Autherley

michelle.bogues said...

What do you think of LeCorbusier’s vision?
Is it right to destroy historic buildings to build more efficient housing?
What is more important in housing: efficiency or beauty?
Would you want to live in a machine?
What is the importance of street life?
Should cars, people, residences, and businesses all mix?


I THINK THAT HE TRIED TO MAKE IT BETTER FOR PEOPLE BUT IT WOLUD NOT WORK FOR ME.
IF THE BUILDING HAS HISTORY NO BUT IF ITS FOR A GOOD CAUSE THEN TEAR IT DOWN.
I THINK THAT IT SHOLUD BE BOTH BECAUSE YOU WANT YOUR HOUSE TO LOOK NICE AND YOU WOLUD WANT IT TO WORK

Seriothan said...

1.I liked his visions because the benefited many people.
2.no, i don't think its right because they hold memorable moments in life...but.....eh, never mind.
3.Efficiency because its what really matters in terms of affordable housing.
4.I believe buildings are machines because technically they run on electricity AND they are man made.
5.the important is that no matter what happens, people learn from each other so to live you live, learn and respect.
6.yes because they are all part of life.

maxiel.metivier said...

2. It's not right to destroy a historic building to make an efficient building. People may someday
want to know about it's history.
3.I can't choose between efficiency or beauty so
I'm going to choose both of them. Everything even
houses need some sort of balance.
6.Businesses,cars,people and residencies shouldn't
mix because it creates overcrowded streets.

carlos.tejeda said...

1.i believe his vision was a very good vision.
2. I believe that it is not good because if they destroy historical buildings then there wont be any history.
6. Yes because that's the way life is.

Ashley Lovett said...

Ashley Lovett

3. I think both efficiency and beauty are equally important. I would move if i lived in a place that was efficient but ugly, or if my place was beautiful but inefficient.
4. I wouldn't want to live in a machine because machines can break so you can always depend on them.
6. I think people cars and residents belong together. But CERTAIN kinds of business should be kept secret. For example my block and wall street are very far apart and I think I think things work well this way.

kashiera.franklyn said...

I think what le corbuiser's was tryin to do was create more of an suburan are rather than an urban area. He wanted to created buliding but them have recreational place and businesses centered around them.If you travel to the suburbs today there are houses them if u go a mile or so you will then start to see businesses, parks and malls .

Natalia said...

Natalia Amaro
2.What is more important in housing: efficiency or beauty?
I say efficiency because when you have an efficiency house you can call it your own creation. When your house is beautiful then it is not your own creation and there nothing beautiful..

4.Would you want to live in a machine?
No! Living in a machine is mainly you not doing nothing. You just being lazy.

6.Should cars, people, residences, and businesses all mix?
No! When you all mix you have no room. You will be all cluttered together. Everyone needs they space!!

karen said...

2.yeah ,i think is rigth because, everything that they need in a good place for living and they still more comfortable .

3. Eficiency home.

6. yeah,because all together could got an easy life.

leonardo.estrella said...

Well i m See So Far He kinda smart like how he developer buildings and those stuff on the street

Yes i agree with it Because the history is change so with have to get more ideas for the buildings

i think both but the most is efficiency because when you seem things like efficiency you can get more opportunidad on the street and get faster at your job

Yes But is the depends on how's it

Yes is important for me i like street life

Yes but na all of then just people and businesses Xd

marlon.atherley said...

1. I think LeCorbusier had a good vision
2. i think it is a good idea if people can benefit from it.
3.efficiency because you have to focus more on helping people than the beauty of a house

leslie.benson said...

1. i think lecorbusier is better because it create more houses.
2 i think its not right to destroy historic buliding because it have history about it but then it better to have nice houses.
3efficiency is better than beauty because of how the house work.
4.i would like to like in a machine to try something new it will be a new experience.
5.i think people cars and residence shouldnt mix they should stay together

Natalia said...

1 He wanted to make the urban a bettter place of architecture for the people. 2 yes it is because the old designs are old buildings that last more than 100 years.it would be more better to build new buildings of housing resints. 3 Its more imporant for efficiency then beauty because at long as its housing authority for people to have a place were they can live but then again having designs would be quicker to get to a place.

A.Roberts said...

1. I think his visions seemed to worry more about just having a house for everyone rather than making it as comfortable as possible.
2. I don't think it's right but it isn't necessarily wrong to destroy historic buildings because they are not really adapted to modern technology but the new housing doesn't have the unique look and personal space as a historic building.
3. I believe efficiency is more important because it's more important that the house is protected and holds the basic needs of a living environment rather than a house that is all show and no work and can't supply something like heat or water.
4. No I wouldn't want to live in a machine because I don't believe a house is just there so that you eat, sleep, and bathe I believe it should also be able to attract you in terms of how you want to be surrounded with things that interest you like parks and other memorable objects that bring a more comfortable house, or home.
5. I think the importance is that you take the experience and try to understand for yourself the goods and the bads so that later if you can show you have made any mistakes you can then choose to repeat any of the goods or you can try to explore any new good decisions and a new life experience like any other life experience you take.
6. Either way if everything is together you would find it easier to get to everything so you would be fine in your own neighborhood and if they were separated it would be more orderly and peaceful in one place and it makes you have to make the choice yourself to explore the other places which can be interesting.

Tevon said...

1. I think Corbusier's vision was a smart one. He basically wanted to organize cities and create a implied space for each asset to the city. The idea of seperating transportation, businesses, etc... helps tourists too when they come to a new place to explore it.

2. I believe that it is ok to destroy old buildings to make way for more efficient buildings, but depending on the role it played or ow much of an important landmark it is sometimes destroying it is crossing the line.

3. The most important thing in a house is efficency, because we live in a capitalist society where people are always looking for ways to make financial gains. The place where you spend most of your life should either make you money or at least not take away too much of your money and because the world is becoming more efficient anyway you only have two choices stay modern or fall behind

Emily said...

2) I dont think its right to destory historic buildings because they all have a meaning behind them. Its past still lives today.
3) Efficency : it matters more than beauty.
6) Yes, they belong together. Thats what makes LIFE.