Let me explain. Let us take as exhibit A this structure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seagram_Building
Okay, Mies van der Rohe, one of the most accalimed modernist architects that ever lived. You're hardly going to call him a cheap copycat architect or tell me, "ah, yes, but a REAL architect wouldn't do that".
Yet if you read the article, you will see that those outside girders on the building that pretend to be supporting it are not supporting anything. He just put them there because he thought it's decorative when a building looks as if it is supported by girders on the outside.
To me, that's styrofoam (in the metaphoric sense). I see no functional difference between this and sticking some angels on a baroque palace.
This I don't get. maybe if the pitch is steep, it's going to cast an extra shadow. But if the pitch is shallow, then the sun must be very low before that shadow is noticeable, and by that time a flat roofed building would also have an enormous shadow.
I still don't see what's good about it. Maybe you are suggesting there are building regulations. You can only build this many meters and to use that fully you need a flat roof. But this is Peter pointing to Paul as these regulations were themselves made by architects. If sufficient architects said, let us change these regulations and say, this height allowed up to the beginning of the roof and then this much more for the roof, I'm sure the regulations would be changed eventually.
I would like to at least tentaively hold this mirror back to you ask whether you have really thought about these things or just accept things because your professors at architecture school said so. I can understand that architects think a certain way about architecture, just as doctors think a certain way about medicine or teachers think a certain way about education. But all these groups have a certain tendency of failing to see the wood for the trees, and when people disagree with their views, of assuming the others are wrong rather than asking if maybe they are too close to the matter to have objective judgement of all things. As I said before, I have architects in my family and they really do love flat roofs and square windows and admire architects who make these things. When they have a customer who wants something more traditional, of course they will do it. After all, the customer is king (as long as he pays) but behind his back they think he's a philistine and they certainly don't put those buildings into their portfolio of the best things they ever did. It's not just about doing the best they can in the constraints that money and other things create, but it's that they love the constrainst that make this the best solution.
