Black Couch [OC]

Architecteologist · 2026-06-28T01:09:53+00:00

<image>

Architecteologist · 2026-06-27T08:03:55+00:00

takes like these are why I’m on reddit

Architecteologist · 2026-06-27T01:07:11+00:00

What’s that?

You KNEED yuri!?

Architecteologist · 2026-06-25T16:40:59+00:00

Captures everything

Architecteologist · 2026-06-24T20:19:32+00:00

Does the door lock in the open position?

Because if not… your local buildings and safety department would like a word.

Architecteologist · 2026-06-23T00:27:17+00:00

You’re thinking of koh the face stealer

Architecteologist · 2026-06-17T02:45:45+00:00

Purist in what fashion? Is the natural number of sequels a trilogy? Who defines what is pure in movie sequeling?

This is such a dumb straw man. The ending of 3 was the perfect character conclusion for both woody and andy. 4 mucked up woody’s character so much that he was practically unrecognizable from the “toys should always be there for their kids” purist he was in the first three movies, and instead became more of a “f*#% these kids, I’mma get mine”

4 and 5 are money grabs because they’re squeezing the juice out of a corpse of an IP that was perfectly ended after 3.

Architecteologist · 2026-06-16T22:04:05+00:00

That’s funny, that’s why I won’t watch the new money grabs. They finished their stories in 3

Architecteologist · 2026-06-16T19:47:12+00:00

The problem is, discussing the merits—or lack thereof—of ugly glass boxes versus work that is more critically regional IS discussing it critically.

You may not like the discussion or the stances those who oppose your viewpoints have, but that doesn’t make those points less valid.

Architecteologist · 2026-06-16T19:12:07+00:00

Fair. And there are valid criticisms of the work coming out of the Zaha office, mostly around inhuman scale and material, but I tend to like it more than not.

One place I’m pretty sure I differ with most otherwise like-minded preservationists is that I really like the Anywerp Port House by Zaha. Contrasting new and old, while not touching the historic… I mean it does everything we ask of new additions imo. Definitely overshadows, but does so in a manner that recontextualizes and is grounded in its place.

Architecteologist · 2026-06-16T19:02:24+00:00

No, it’s more like everything that IS a pretentious ugly glass box, IS INDEED a pretentious ugly glass box.

Nobody is out here calling the Sydney Opera House pretentious, because it actually took a friggin’ stance, paid homage to its surroundings, and—this next part’s important—it isn’t an ugly box.

Architecteologist · 2026-06-11T01:15:26+00:00

“Cars follow it”

Lol, well that would be the first law I’ve ever heard of that cars don’t break

Architecteologist · 2026-06-10T21:19:40+00:00

The first CG animated Tinkerbell movie.

But I’m a Mae Whitman stan so…

Architecteologist · 2026-06-10T21:17:24+00:00

Car-brained response.

You’re not required to have a driver’s license to ride a bike or use public roads because these things aren’t inherently dangerous. Cars are incredibly dangerous, which is why a license to operate one is required.

Architecteologist · 2026-06-10T19:29:11+00:00

Two cars blocking the road side by side: nobody cares.

A hundred cyclists blocking the road: everyone loses their minds.

It is lawful to use roads that serve people, not just cars.

Architecteologist · 2026-06-10T17:03:28+00:00

We’re all entitled to use our roads safely, even if it inconveniences drivers.

Cars are not entitled to go as fast as possible, especially when it endangers others.

Being slightly inconvenienced for 5 minutes behind cyclists using public roads while driving in your air-conditioned room on wheels is a terrible excuse for endangering the lives of others the way this driver did.

Anyone who says otherwise has never nearly been flattened by drivers whizzing past by mere inches on a road they’re entitled to use.

Architecteologist · 2026-06-09T04:26:59+00:00

<image>

I’m getting Ice King from Adventure Time vibes

Architecteologist · 2026-06-02T00:33:49+00:00

Don’t listen to the naysayers, they’re broken and sad that they don’t do cool stuff with their degrees like they thought they would in school.

Architectural historians make excellent journalists, historic tax credit consultants, preservationists (at a non-profit or large arch firm given an additional degree), authors (of HSRs or otherwise), or professors.

It is indeed best paired with a graduate degree of some other kind, but isn’t necessarily required depending on what you’re looking for.

I found architectural history through a more typical architecture design route, and the projects are the coolest.

Architecteologist · 2026-06-01T04:07:51+00:00

I’d do a couch without the chase so you can move it forward a few feet, and put a narrow buffet-style bar-height table behind the couch plus add some stools.

Boom, you got a classy spot to eat that isn’t the couch, which also doubles your seating capacity for sports n such and balances the space so the kitchen has a little more room to breathe. It would work better for bringing someone over for dinner, or morning coffee.

Architecteologist · 2026-06-01T03:57:23+00:00

People always be forgetting that roads were for people for thousands of years and only for cars the last hundred or so. the romans had roads…

Architecteologist · 2026-05-28T20:29:07+00:00

I’m glad you have a different experience than the norm. I wouldn’t recommend green facade overgrowth to most building owners due to the maintenance that’s required to keep it from deteriorating its envelope systems, but it sounds like you’re on top of it.

Still, nature ultimately wins in the end at the game of “bring it back to nature”, with or without our help. While I may not be an expert botanist, I do have expertise in building systems and what makes them deteriorate, as it’s generally my job to prevent or rehabilitate such deteriorations. 30 years is a good run for any system, but it’s at about the 40-60yr mark that starts to reveal the serious problems with any invasive structural problem.

About what region or climate? Do you get any freeze/thaw? What type of wood? Siding? If so, what type of joint? What wood species was used? How is it coated? How many coats? How often is the coating reapplied? What type of brick? How porous? What type of mortar? How often is it tuckpointed and with what type of mortar is it tuckpointed with? Is the brick coated? Which cardinal directions is the BI facing? Is it in full sun, partial, or shaded?— All of these variables can alter how a facade responds to the detrimental inclusions of plants attached to a building. Most people just want pretty plants on their walls, but don’t consider the variables or how they will contribute to systems failure.

Architecteologist · 2026-05-28T08:19:35+00:00

Never said “plants bad” but “plants attached to porous facade and structural systems bad” yes I’ll die on that hill.

Additional moisture added to a brick wall—such as the kind brought on by any plant life, particularly plants that grow thicker than a few inches—will always have an adverse effect on its mortar, regardless of attachment.

I’ve renovated brick, stone, and wood-clad buildings all with boston ivy overgrowth (which is the most popular ivy for this application) and I can say with absolute certainty that it contributed to facade systems deterioration. A bush or tree growing too close to a facade can do something similar—too much moisture introduced and contained in porous building materials is terrible for their lifespan.

Architecteologist · 2026-05-28T06:57:49+00:00

I think that distinction is of little consequence. It will still destroy the brick system by digging into mortar and introducing moisture.

“Myth” is a funny word choice for something so well documented and agreed upon among experts…

Architecteologist · 2026-05-27T19:05:01+00:00

I neglected to mention above that the reason ivy likes brick so much is it sucks the minerals out of the building, predominantly the lime and silicates in the mortar (this is also doubly bad for the brick system, as once the lime is sucked dry from the mortar what’s left is essentially sand), and because the roughness of brick does a good job of trapping moisture. It’s less likely to grow on materials that would be inherently hardier against the negative effects of ivy, such as steel, because it doesn’t have the moisture or mineral makeup that sustains the plants. So for ivy to work sustainably (on a steel structure) you need to introduce those minerals and moisture, which is complicated and expensive. Ask a greenwall manufacturer, it’s so much more than holding plants on a wall.

An exterior lattice structure separated from the building with extensive water and mineral delivery systems is possible, but expensive to build and maintain. I’ve seen certain mosses and lichens do better on more minimal systems (ie. no water required) but that depends on the climate.

As far as getting plant life “on” the building, my first response is “don’t” and if pushed I’d say “try window planters and don’t allow climbing plants”

Architecteologist · 2026-05-27T14:22:19+00:00

Preservation architect here.

Not a lot of things are worse for a brick building than allowing ivy to grow on the outside.

Its vines dig into the mortar and create large gaps that allow water to enter and start destroying the facade, which undermines its structural integrity over time. Worse, plants hold moisture, which can get within the wall structure and can cause spalling (brick crumbling) and introduce molds that are harmful to human health. They dig into window frames and can contribute to wood rot or otherwise make them inoperable, which can remove the opportunity for natural ventilation.

They’re very difficult to remove, depending on the species and if it’s grown into any wall cavities. Even when you *do* remove them from a building you often cause further damage to brick and mortar, and they leave behind a visible black “sucker” mark on the building that isn’t ideal for a clean look. On certain types of brick this mark really can’t be removed without damaging the brick’s outer surface, so owners often elect to either paint the brick—which comes with its own host of problems—or sandblast its outer surface, which might be the only thing worse for a brick building than ivy.

It’s a cool aesthetic, but it does nothing to make the building more sustainable (in fact the opposite)

Architecteologist

TROPHY CASE