eltdown

Thanks BarbyW, that's helped me solve the problem. I rarely install stuff to the path the installers recommend, so I usually have a holding folder whilst I edit files in Reader. In this case I'd decided to install them to the desktop, and the props folder wasn't being created. I don't know if that's a quirk with the installer or Windows, but either way, problem solved and lessons learned. Thankyou!

Hi folks. This question could just as easily belong in the farming EP comments thread,so my apologies if it's misplaced: I'm having problems with the first set of Simgoober's farm fields. I appear to have all the dependencies listed, but looking at the fields in Reader, I seem to be missing: SG_Fields_Beans.dat, SG_Fields_Corn.dat, and so on, for all seven of the fields. Where can I find these, please? I assume they were bundled with something I just haven't downloaded yet...

Wallasey: Thanks, and yes, I'm from the northwest. I'm somewhere in between Mancheter and Stockport. Nice place to live. And I work very near the Hat Museum, and attended Manchester uni. Garyreggae: I may well be able to get plans, definitely photos, as some of my friends did a project on...replanning just that area (the tutors have a funny habit of doing things like that). I didn't mean to sound cheeky with that request, by the way, as I know how much work goes into those BATs! fosterk: Nice photos, I'd forgotten how funky Liverpool Catholic Cathedral was. One thing I do worry about with Manchester is it gaining too many high-rise buildings. Some of those residential towers are ridiculous, you can see them for miles, it seems like the council are a bit too desperate to encourage city centre living sometimes. We'll just have to see how they look when they're done...

Excellent stuff, and good to see you took the time to visit Stockport as well. I've not wandered around the city centre for a couple of months now, and I don't recognise some of the new work that's going on! Hope you got a good look at Stockport's wedding cake town hall whilst you were there. Good to see such a comprehensive set of photos on your website, too. Just one or two things I'd add/clarify, if you're interested: 2: shows some of the court buildings. 19: the pub was moved piece by piece from its old site, due to commercial development. 28: The Odeon cinema was pretty much put out of business by the one in the Printworks. Shame, too. 34: The Great Northern Warehouse has let practically none of its retail units since it opened (few years now), except for a cinema, a gym, and Persia. 58: Straight ahead is the Midlands Hotel, very imposing at Street level. 78: That is the Contact Theatre, and those chimney things are for natural ventilation. 80: Any chance of a commemorative BAT for the Maths Building? On a side note, most of my friends are (almost) architects now, so blame them for anything you don't like that you see going up in Manchester in the near future. And thanks for sharing these photos!

Date: 8/25/2005 11:52:40 PM Author: ACEfanatic @frndofyahweh:Architecture is not created for the mere purpose of shelter. ; That would fall under the classification of construction.  (i.e. do you really count a tent as Architecture?) ; At least in the US, Architecture is, or was, an outlet for people to boast about their wealth and success (or lack thereof, in some cases). May as well de-lurk for this one. I was going to post a statement that tents were low-level architecture, which then led me to think about the definition of architecture: I really shouldn't think too much at the weekend, but here goes: Essentially, all construction, even on the tent level, involves a decision-making process. So, does a decision-making process of sufficient complexity constitute architecture? After all, every decision affects the aesthetic qualities of the final structure, although, for me, the phrase implies that specific consideration is given to aesthetic qualities. Which would have to lead me to the conclusion that, even if a building looks appalling and overly basic in someone's eyes, if sufficient consideration has gone into the aesthetics, it is still as valid as architecture. Sure, some buildings are motivated by mainly commercial interests, such as maximising available floor space, and are barely able to be considered as architecture (retail units, for example), which makes me think that it is thoroughly reflective of corporate attitudes that most choose bland, air-conditioned glass boxes. To use a slightly provocative example, what about some of Tadao Ando's urban buildings? They deliberately present bare concrete facades to the street, but come alive inside. A lot of thought has gone into these buildings, but would you want a street full of them? Just to go back to the topic's title, form follows function is not true, as has already been stated: you simply cannot separate the two. Well, that was fun. I really shouldn't type aloud. Excuse the waffling, and I'll go lurk some more.