That sounds like something my younger sister was describing to me in explaining the latest folderol with our Claremont City Council and the Architectural Commission. Apparently, some proposals had been submitted and the Architectural Commission was tasked with study, evaluate according to city's pre-existing plan, and report to city council on findings. Instead, what the client got was "This is bad design."
The former is what they were supposed to do; they were supposed to find whether the design was APPROPRIATE as you note. Instead, the Architectural Commission, led by an actual architect on the commission, merely said the design was "bad. " That tells the client nothing.
Out here in California, there is "bad design. " That would be something that would collapse in the next earthquake. But the Architectural Commission merely did not like the aesthetics of the facade, which is a wholly different thing.
Thus, to your quote, you have two answers to fill in your 150 words. 1) There IS such a thing as "bad design. " It's a design that'll kill people when the building collapses.2) Unfortunately, when most people say "bad design," they really mean "ugly," which has nothing at all to do with whether it is "safe." .
He/she means that the terms "good" and "bad" are value judgments and thus. Simply a matter of opinion. Appropriate, on the other hand has specific meaning.
You would not want to design a baptist church to appear to be the corner bar. This would be inappropriate. LolDoeth thyn own homeworketh!
I’m sorry I refuse to be your enabler. This question does not seem very hard to answer if you take the time to read and re-read it. I am confident that you yourself have the ability to come to your own conclusions.
May I suggest you pay attention in class and take notes.
I knew you would give me a not helpful but you should still learn to do your own work.
That sounds like something my younger sister was describing to me in explaining the latest folderol with our Claremont City Council and the Architectural Commission. Apparently, some proposals had been submitted and the Architectural Commission was tasked with study, evaluate according to city's pre-existing plan, and report to city council on findings. Instead, what the client got was "This is bad design."
The former is what they were supposed to do; they were supposed to find whether the design was APPROPRIATE as you note. Instead, the Architectural Commission, led by an actual architect on the commission, merely said the design was "bad." That tells the client nothing.
Out here in California, there is "bad design." That would be something that would collapse in the next earthquake. But the Architectural Commission merely did not like the aesthetics of the facade, which is a wholly different thing.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.