<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">

<channel>
<title>Reading Rudolph : Responses</title>
<description>Design Observer ::Â Join the Discussion</description>
<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/reading-rudolph/12607/</link>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Design Observer Group</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-05-10T07:31:02-05:00</dc:date>
<copyright>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0</copyright>




<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Reading Rudolph"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[@thayer-D,<br />
The only lemon here seems to be your degree in architecture, though I can't say it it squandered much intellectual capital.  Read your Banham.  Then get back to work placing vinyl shutters in elevation.]]></description>
	<author>Stourley Kracklite</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/reading-rudolph/12607/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-05-10T07:31:02-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Reading Rudolph"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[@ Rodger,<br />
It sounds like you're one of those who invested way too much intellectual capital in what is essentially a lemon.  You may sincerely like concrete bunkers for human habitation, but your personal criticism reveals a thin skin that comes not being too sure of your self.  There's nothing intimate about his buildings.  And there is no reason to look any closer than the years at architecture school where they shoved modernism down everyones throat at the expence of buildings people actually like.<br />
]]></description>
	<author>Thayer-D</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/reading-rudolph/12607/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-03-08T07:30:15-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Reading Rudolph"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[@thayer-D,<br />
please don't lump paul rudolph in with ' his modernist contemporaries who have contempt for humanity' his buildings have an intimate scale to them, in addition to the monument scale he deploys, that you see only in the best of modern buildings by the best modern architects. this is small list, admittedly, but rudolph is one of the members of this elite group..<br />
you need to look a little more closely at the man and his buildings because you, clearly, have no idea what you are talking about.]]></description>
	<author>rodger</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/reading-rudolph/12607/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-03-06T11:22:34-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Reading Rudolph"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Oh ho!  Are we going to revive every anti-urbanist architect from the modernist mainstream?  I believe a better lable for his detractors would be humanist.  His work, like so many of his modernist contemporaries reflects their contempt for humanity so clearly articulated by Le Corbusier and Gropius.  He may have been a fine fellow, and in a different time produced things of real beauty, but scientific rationalism in orthodox or baroque guise will never a human abode make.]]></description>
	<author>Thayer-D</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/reading-rudolph/12607/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-03-05T15:04:11-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Reading Rudolph"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[I work a few blocks from the Government Service building in Boston, and it's always fascinated me - even given its sadly run-down state and before I knew who Paul Rudolph was. It's always pleasantly incongruous to find mammoth concrete structures with so many curves (unlike Boston's City Hall, that just looms and glowers over the landscape), and in a city that's only recently begun to shake off its obsession with making everything look like a Beacon Hill red-brick  Colonial-era townhome, it's wonderfully refreshing.]]></description>
	<author>Jamie</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/reading-rudolph/12607/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-03-04T09:25:06-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Reading Rudolph"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Thanks for this piece, nice writing. I'd like to add that looking at Rudolph's interiors also prompts a rethink of the "brutalist" label. His own apartment on E58th St in New York is worth a tour - you get the complexity of his architecture and a response to modernism that is anything but brutal - not to everyone's taste (it reminded me of 1970s James Bond films) but the detailing is exquisite and there's a real warmth to it...<br />
pic here: http://blog.ounodesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/modulightorx4.jpg<br />
<br />
<br />
http://djhuppatz.blogspot.com/]]></description>
	<author>Dan</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/reading-rudolph/12607/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-03-04T04:29:50-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Reading Rudolph"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[the halston home is great, after halston bought it from the original owner (some doctor or other) and before the current owner decided to add his own worthless fartwork to the mix.]]></description>
	<author>davis</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/reading-rudolph/12607/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-03-02T14:56:03-05:00</dc:date>
</item>



</channel>
</rss>

	


